Firearms Regulations

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11206
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Firearms Regulations

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue May 22, 2018 1:03 pm UTC

Gettin' a firearms thread goin', as while this is news, these topics tend to go long and detract from other news postings.

Anyways, it's been popular of late to ban bump stocks. For context, they were used in the Vegas shooting, and were otherwise pretty uncontroversial before then. They're a niche product, basically a range toy, and are a stock that is particularly springy. Anyways, in areas where the bans have happened, there has been a great lack of turning them in. So far, seven states have gotten on board with a ban, but in terms of practical effect, it does not seem to have any.

Note that these are bans on possession, not merely manufacture, so they more closely approximate gun-banning fears of firearm advocates, even though they apply to only a tiny niche of firearm accessories. Anyone care to defend possession bans as a result?

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/nobody_turned_in_their_bump_stocks_say_new_jersey_state_police

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby ucim » Tue May 22, 2018 2:48 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Anyone care to defend possession bans as a result?
The video I saw of a demo of bump stocks shows me that it is pretty effective at turning a semi-auto into [what I imagine to be] a fully automatic machine gun. On philosophical grounds, if fully automatic machine guns are possession-banned, then it makes sense that bump stocks should be also.

On practical grounds however, bump stocks are very simple mods. It would be something like banning pipe (because it's just a pipe bomb without the end caps) or end caps (because they let you make pipe bombs). So enforcement of such a ban is probably impractical; the law would have the primary effect of giving another charge to add to somebody caught in a murderous rampage (who didn't then kill themselves anyway), and could serve as prima facie evidence of intent to commit mass murder, which is only useful after somebody has done so, so they can't argue that they "accidentally" went down to the schoolyard fully armed and "oopsed". Perhaps this is more useful prosecuting a case involving organized crime. (Question, as I'm not a shooter: Do bump stocks have any sporting usefulness beyond "cool, blow things up!"?) So ultimately, it seems the ban would have little practical value beyond "sending a message".

Guns don't shoot themselves.

Perhaps we should revisit the reasoning behind the ban on fully automatic weapons in private hands. Is that reasoning valid? I suppose it helps prevent those weapons from falling into the wrong hands (they are expensive so easier to control), but if something cheap and easy accomplishes the same thing (mostly), then perhaps we're just tilting at the wind.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
PAstrychef
for all intimate metaphysical encounters
Posts: 2907
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:24 pm UTC

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby PAstrychef » Tue May 22, 2018 4:34 pm UTC

One of the long term effects of restrictive laws is to change the social view of the items/actions being regulated. We instituted laws about DUI and public smoking, and over time both have become unacceptable (or at least unpopular). Both sets of laws were ridiculed as useless and overreaching and both have made our world safer and saved lives.
The idea that guns are an essential thing that people must be allowed to owned is pernicious and the basis for the ongoing situation in the US. Many, many people believe this. The myth of the gun in the US is a foundation of national identity. Therefore, any discussion about regulation becomes a quagmire because we are only talking about guns themselves in a superficial manner. For many people, these regulations are attacks on their personal and national identities.
However, making access to guns more difficult, making gun use less sexy as a problem solver, making owners legally responsible for any shooting done with their guns-it should be possible to get people to be less enamored with guns.
Starting out by saying that any regulation won’t stop a determined individual so we should do nothing is a cop out. Laws don’t prevent crimes, they allow society to punish those who do things it deems unacceptable. Laws are society’s way of saying “this is a bad thing, do it and you will be sorry.” Starting to say “guns are used to kill too many people in the US.” is at least a beginning. Acknowledging that access to guns is a real part of the problem is necessary.
After all, we enforce DUI laws even if the police can’t possibly catch every drunk driver. Even though some folks can down pint after pint and still drive just fine, we don’t claim it’s an individual issue when someone is arrested for DUI. Cries of “most drunk drivers get home just fine!” aren’t heard across the country.
Discussing minutiae as substantive problems is another place where this conversation grinds to a halt. “Bump stocks ok!” “Bump stocks bad!” “Assault weapons don't exist!” “Assault weapons must be banned!” These are ways of deflecting dissent.
The basic question is why our society has thought it was ok and normal for guns to be everywhere, has fetishized them, glorified them and seen their use as a form of freedom.
Don’t become a well-rounded person. Well rounded people are smooth and dull. Become a thoroughly spiky person. Grow spikes from every angle. Stick in their throats like a puffer fish.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby ucim » Tue May 22, 2018 4:49 pm UTC

PAstrychef wrote:One of the long term effects of restrictive laws is to change the social view of the items/actions being regulated.
Another is to change the societal view of the people being regulated. It fosters the idea that people just can't be trusted to exercise good judgment, and that leads to atrophy of judgment in people.

DUI and public smoking, in and of themselves, are inherently harmful to others. Shooting guns is not (although I'll certainly admit that shooting guns at people is). And note that we didn't ban cars or tobacco.

PAstrychef wrote:Acknowledging that access to guns is a real part of the problem is necessary. After all, we enforce DUI laws even if the police can’t possibly catch every drunk driver.
I don't see a connection between those two statements.

The problem isn't that it's too easy to use a gun when you want to shoot up a school. The problem is that people want to shoot up a school in the first place. Making bump stocks illegal won't change that, and we already have laws against shooting up schools.

PAstrychef wrote:Discussing minutiae as substantive problems...
These are the substantial problems.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11206
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue May 22, 2018 5:03 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Anyone care to defend possession bans as a result?
The video I saw of a demo of bump stocks shows me that it is pretty effective at turning a semi-auto into [what I imagine to be] a fully automatic machine gun. On philosophical grounds, if fully automatic machine guns are possession-banned, then it makes sense that bump stocks should be also.


Not particularly. The internals of the gun are not modified in the slightest. The principle is that the gun bounces, requiring somewhat less finger effort in order to pull the trigger again. The gun itself doesn't achieve a higher rate of fire or anything. Given that all guns have recoil, bump stock or no, you can get the same effect by holding the gun loosely enough that it bounces, or I suppose one could have a springy pad on the part of their clothes that stock presses against.

Now, because a bump stock does so little, the ban is probably not a big deal in any practical terms. But on the flip side, it's not really helpful either. It is somewhat similar to prior attempts to ban guns based on cosmetic features.

On practical grounds however, bump stocks are very simple mods. It would be something like banning pipe (because it's just a pipe bomb without the end caps) or end caps (because they let you make pipe bombs). So enforcement of such a ban is probably impractical; the law would have the primary effect of giving another charge to add to somebody caught in a murderous rampage (who didn't then kill themselves anyway), and could serve as prima facie evidence of intent to commit mass murder, which is only useful after somebody has done so, so they can't argue that they "accidentally" went down to the schoolyard fully armed and "oopsed". Perhaps this is more useful prosecuting a case involving organized crime. (Question, as I'm not a shooter: Do bump stocks have any sporting usefulness beyond "cool, blow things up!"?) So ultimately, it seems the ban would have little practical value beyond "sending a message".


Bump stocks are not used in any practical shooting so far as I'm aware. Hunting and competitive shooting value accurate fire, and the sort of shooting a bump stock does is not particularly precise. Shooting a lot of rounds fast is fun, but it's strictly amusement, it provides no actual practical advantages at all.

I think the ban is sending a message, though. The fact that the bans are on possession, in particular, is interesting. The anti-gunners have frequently claimed that no, they are not in fact out to grab guns, and have pointed to grandfather clauses as an excuse. This time, though, no grandfather clauses. Why?

Perhaps we should revisit the reasoning behind the ban on fully automatic weapons in private hands. Is that reasoning valid? I suppose it helps prevent those weapons from falling into the wrong hands (they are expensive so easier to control), but if something cheap and easy accomplishes the same thing (mostly), then perhaps we're just tilting at the wind.

Jose


Legal fully automatic weapons are just not a factor in violent crime at all. The same is true of grenade launchers, mortars, etc. They're a niche hobby/collectors item, but they've never really been a concern.

Same is true of say, short barreled rifles, which are treated same as machineguns. The idea being that, oh no, they are concealable. Which, yknow...I can buy a pistol with a four inch barrel, why is buying a rifle with a twelve inch barrel concerning?

PAstrychef wrote:One of the long term effects of restrictive laws is to change the social view of the items/actions being regulated. We instituted laws about DUI and public smoking, and over time both have become unacceptable (or at least unpopular). Both sets of laws were ridiculed as useless and overreaching and both have made our world safer and saved lives.


If that is the case, then it is logical and reasonable for gun advocates to oppose any and all gun legislation, compromise, and work to repeal all existing legislation. Also, probably, to work for government subsidy of the social views.

I mean, if we're abandoning the idea of gun control laws making any sense in their own right, and embracing a straight culture war, then there is little reason for gun owners to make any sort of concessions whatsoever.

PAstrychef wrote:Starting out by saying that any regulation won’t stop a determined individual so we should do nothing is a cop out. Laws don’t prevent crimes, they allow society to punish those who do things it deems unacceptable. Laws are society’s way of saying “this is a bad thing, do it and you will be sorry.” Starting to say “guns are used to kill too many people in the US.” is at least a beginning. Acknowledging that access to guns is a real part of the problem is necessary.


You can already punish anyone who uses a gun to commit a crime.

If the goal is to criminalize and punish anyone who is a gun owner for that reason alone, then you are exactly what the most rabid gun advocates portray gun banners as.

The basic question is why our society has thought it was ok and normal for guns to be everywhere, has fetishized them, glorified them and seen their use as a form of freedom.


Because that was literally why our country had a revolution, and became a country.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3483
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby Soupspoon » Tue May 22, 2018 5:33 pm UTC

ucim wrote:DUI and public smoking, in and of themselves, are inherently harmful to others. Shooting guns is not (although I'll certainly admit that shooting guns at people is). And note that we didn't ban cars or tobacco.

Depends where you put your goalposts. Drinking isn't banned (though restricted for age), driving isn't banned (age restricted, though less so, with requirements for some sort of licence atop), smoking itself isn't banned (again, supposed age-restriction) and the use of firearms isn't banned (particular restrictions aside, including maybe an absolute ban for felons of a given calibre (NPI), as with being barred from driving for traffic offences, etc).

Smoking in a designated no smoking zone is banned, whether that just be inside cars with children, various degrees of public places, or whatever your jurisdiction has decided is their limitations. Drinking can be banned in certain public places (certainly here in the UK) and business licencing arrangements for eateries may require additional licencing for the serving/consumption of alcohol. Driving is not completely permitted wherever you can drive a vehicle, you are barred from designated bus-lanes, or car-share lanes if you're not car-sharing, or special municipal roads which require a toll to be paid and/or a permit issued to your vehicle unless you pay that toll or show that permit. Learner drivers may need a fully licensed passenger to accompany them, and/or not be allowed on various major roads and/or not be allowed a type of vehicle beyond a certain engine capacity and/or not be allowed to have only passengers below a ceetain age.

Drinking and driving is part of the driving limitations, much as smoking and pumping fuel may be a legal thing under the hazardous substance handling laws.

A generic gun is not banned. Guns of certain qualities are. Like vehicles with blade-spoilers might be, or illegally distilled moonshine might be. Or high-tar cigarettes without filters might be.

Smoking in a place where it has been agreed that people don't smoke, drinking in a place where it is not legally agreeable, driving the wrong way up a one-way street and firing guns in the air to celeberate a wedding in the many places where this behaviour is disallowed are restrictions for the common good. Open-carrying a bazooka might be one end of the restrictions, at the other you're required that when moving a gun between such places as a suitably equipped home (gun cabinets, if so required) and a place allowed to operate as a firing range the gun must be kept, unloaded and separately from the ammunition, in a locked box in the trunk of your car. Not allowing a casually loaded gun to slide around the car interior might be an issue regarding freedom to some, like the ability to fit a bump-stock or use hollow-point ammunition might be to others, for whatever reason. If it's not allowed, then it's not allowed, but it doesn't ban guns to not allow these things, any more than cars are not banned just because you're not allowed to drunkenly drive your APC through red lights and stop-signs, smoking away on a crack-pipe as your kids (not secured by seatbelts, or in age-appropriate child-seats) fire machineguns out of the gunports. Somewhere, a line has been crossed, just about anywhere that's otherwise safe to live amd bring up children in.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby ucim » Tue May 22, 2018 5:43 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Not particularly. The internals of the gun are not modified in the slightest [by a bump stock]. The principle is that the gun bounces, requiring somewhat less finger effort in order to pull the trigger again. The gun itself doesn't achieve a higher rate of fire or anything.
Really? I believe the gun doesn't fire any faster than it is (otherwise) capable of, but it seems to fire a lot faster than the shooter would otherwise be capable of. It's not the "less trigger effort" but the "faster trigger action" "faster action on the trigger" that is the result. It's not a cosmetic modification. It's a functional attachment that alters the capability. It lets the gun pull its own trigger* as long as your finger is in place.

*yes, the gun, being the thing that is moving (against a motionless finger), is the thing that pulls the trigger.

Soupspoon wrote:Depends where you put your goalposts. [...] Somewhere, a line has been crossed.
Iin your example, actions are being banned. DUI is an action. Public smoking is an action. Shooting up a school is an action. In the case under discussion, things are being banned. Bump stocks are a thing, machine guns are a thing. (Yeah, possession is an action in the grammatical sense, but that's not what I'm talking about).

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11206
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue May 22, 2018 5:53 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
ucim wrote:DUI and public smoking, in and of themselves, are inherently harmful to others. Shooting guns is not (although I'll certainly admit that shooting guns at people is). And note that we didn't ban cars or tobacco.

Depends where you put your goalposts. Drinking isn't banned (though restricted for age), driving isn't banned (age restricted, though less so, with requirements for some sort of licence atop), smoking itself isn't banned (again, supposed age-restriction) and the use of firearms isn't banned (particular restrictions aside, including maybe an absolute ban for felons of a given calibre (NPI), as with being barred from driving for traffic offences, etc).

Smoking in a designated no smoking zone is banned, whether that just be inside cars with children, various degrees of public places, or whatever your jurisdiction has decided is their limitations. Drinking can be banned in certain public places (certainly here in the UK) and business licencing arrangements for eateries may require additional licencing for the serving/consumption of alcohol.


We have age restrictions on buying guns, just as we do on buying booze and cigs. And no-gun zones exist, just as there are no smoking zones. In addition to where these zones are set by law, some establishments simply choose to prohibit guns. As with the other things, there's a bunch of additional laws, sometimes differing by state.

In some respects, some of the other categories have actually been loosening in the US. Brewery regulations have generally loosened somewhat to be more microbrew/homebrew friendly, and the public sentiment in the US is largely that this is a good thing. There also seem to be generally more sentiment against religious/etc blue laws banning alcohol on certain days, etc. Many such laws still exist, but they are far less likely to get passed now, and many of those that exist are viewed as kind of stupid.

Not allowing a casually loaded gun to slide around the car interior might be an issue regarding freedom to some, like the ability to fit a bump-stock or use hollow-point ammunition might be to others, for whatever reason. If it's not allowed, then it's not allowed, but it doesn't ban guns to not allow these things, any more than cars are not banned just because you're not allowed to drunkenly drive your APC through red lights and stop-signs, smoking away on a crack-pipe as your kids (not secured by seatbelts, or in age-appropriate child-seats) fire machineguns out of the gunports.


Safe storage laws are already a thing, and are not terribly controversial in general(though I personally think it is obnoxious that I have to purchase not one, but two pistol locks with every pistol).

That said, if, as PAstry indicates, the plan is to make gun ownership more and more tedious by adding endless pointless regulation, with an end goal of getting rid of gun culture altogether, then it make less sense to accept the odd regulation as simply a tradeoff of life, and quite a lot more sense to treat each such attempt as another step towards a complete ban.

Even the ones we have at present, that are not currently controversial, perhaps?

Really? I believe the gun doesn't fire any faster than it is (otherwise) capable of, but it seems to fire a lot faster than the shooter would otherwise be capable of. It's not the "less trigger effort" but the "faster trigger action" "faster action on the trigger" that is the result. It's not a cosmetic modification. It's a functional attachment that alters the capability. It lets the gun pull its own trigger* as long as your finger is in place.

*yes, the gun, being the thing that is moving (against a motionless finger), is the thing that pulls the trigger.


Yeah, really. It's literally just holding the gun loosely(but keeping your finger firmly in position), and the exact same thing occurs. The gun bounces against your shoulder, rather than against the stock. The stock is more comfortable, I suppose, but the exact same mechanics govern the rate of fire in either case.

It is not generally accurate. In the case of the Vegas shooter, this tradeoff probably didn't matter, given that he was aiming at a crowd, but people generally do not shoot a firearm for any serious purpose that way because of this. Bump stock or no. I don't think it's come up in any other shooting other than the Vegas incident.

-Edited to fix broken quote tags.
Last edited by Tyndmyr on Wed May 23, 2018 12:31 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3483
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby Soupspoon » Tue May 22, 2018 7:53 pm UTC

ucim wrote:Iin your example, actions are being banned. DUI is an action. […] In the case under discussion, things are being banned.

I also mentioned car modifications. Not banning the car (so long as the car is not only sold with such modifications), but bans a thing on the car. Hollowpoint ammo is a subtype of ammo, that may be banned (see local by-laws!) where ammo as a whole is not.

I'm happy with what I said. I think it covered a lot of ground. However you run with it.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11206
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed May 23, 2018 12:37 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
ucim wrote:Iin your example, actions are being banned. DUI is an action. […] In the case under discussion, things are being banned.

I also mentioned car modifications. Not banning the car (so long as the car is not only sold with such modifications), but bans a thing on the car. Hollowpoint ammo is a subtype of ammo, that may be banned (see local by-laws!) where ammo as a whole is not.

I'm happy with what I said. I think it covered a lot of ground. However you run with it.


Sure. Generally those sorts of bans have reasons, though. Putting a police-siren on your car is generally illegal because people impersonating police causes problems.

Firearm accessories generally don't have much of a causal reason, though. The vegas shooting is the only time the accessory has been relevant to crime in general, and even then, fewer than half the guns involved had them. Nobody is turning them in for the bans. I think the idea that this actually makes us safer in any real sense is pretty questionable.

There is one niche use for bump stocks. If someone has arthritis or another condition that makes the trigger pulling motion hard or painful, using the bump stock is more convenient. However, they're still maybe 99% range toy.

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4868
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby HES » Wed May 23, 2018 1:12 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Firearm accessories generally don't have much of a causal reason, though. The vegas shooting is the only time the accessory has been relevant to crime in general, and even then, fewer than half the guns involved had them. Nobody is turning them in for the bans. I think the idea that this actually makes us safer in any real sense is pretty questionable.

This makes perfect sense in the context that the bump stock ban was a sacrificial pawn by the gun lobby to avoid more reaching regulations. Of course it doesn't work, it wasn't supposed to.
He/Him/His Image

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3483
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby Soupspoon » Wed May 23, 2018 2:42 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Sure. Generally those sorts of bans have reasons, though. Putting a police-siren on your car is generally illegal because people impersonating police causes problems.
But impersonating military personnel does not?

I don't think I've said (in this thread - not sure about ever, in the heat of some moment) "ban bump-stocks". But if the best you can come up with is that in order to let people play around on firing ranges doing things they would(/should) never dream of doing outside of those ranges you must totally allow unhindered free use (or, if you're addressing accessibility for those with physical impairment, then basically allowing anybody to park in disabled spaces, regardless of their possession of a medically-certified permit that ought to grant exceptional use of them) then you might as well forget about stopping people painting their cars up in a two-tone design, blue lights atop, fancy horn and let them arbitrarily write tickets upon other road users while you're at it.

Wouldn't that'd be the full Libertarian width of goalposts?

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby ucim » Wed May 23, 2018 3:17 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:[if .... then ] you must totally allow unhindered free use...
No, merely possession, which is necessary for the limited use envisioned. This rule is a blanket ban on possession. I also don't have a position, but let's at least reason properly about it.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11206
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed May 23, 2018 6:02 pm UTC

HES wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Firearm accessories generally don't have much of a causal reason, though. The vegas shooting is the only time the accessory has been relevant to crime in general, and even then, fewer than half the guns involved had them. Nobody is turning them in for the bans. I think the idea that this actually makes us safer in any real sense is pretty questionable.

This makes perfect sense in the context that the bump stock ban was a sacrificial pawn by the gun lobby to avoid more reaching regulations. Of course it doesn't work, it wasn't supposed to.


I mean, gun lobbyists mostly don't care a great deal about the bump stock because of it's low utility/importance(though a few have campaigned against such bans), so...sure.

But it's not as if they generally advocated banning it. It's mostly sought by the usual anti-gun sorts.

Soupspoon wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Sure. Generally those sorts of bans have reasons, though. Putting a police-siren on your car is generally illegal because people impersonating police causes problems.
But impersonating military personnel does not?


Weirdly enough, it doesn't. Stolen valor, while generally looked down on, is only illegal in certain circumstances, such as attempting to gain unearned benefits.

Now, if you're talking about merely owning a firearm, I sincerely doubt that anyone mistakes Joe-Bob Hillbilly for the military just because he bought a fancy gun.

Soupspoon wrote: But if the best you can come up with is that in order to let people play around on firing ranges doing things they would(/should) never dream of doing outside of those ranges you must totally allow unhindered free use (or, if you're addressing accessibility for those with physical impairment, then basically allowing anybody to park in disabled spaces, regardless of their possession of a medically-certified permit that ought to grant exceptional use of them) then you might as well forget about stopping people painting their cars up in a two-tone design, blue lights atop, fancy horn and let them arbitrarily write tickets upon other road users while you're at it.


I have no idea what similarity you are attempting to draw between bump stocks and disabled parking permits, unless it is that both are wildly unlikely to be an actual problem for anyone.

Soupspoon wrote:Wouldn't that'd be the full Libertarian width of goalposts?


Pretty sure if we were going full on libertarian(which is hardly necessary to be pro-gun, most republicans seem to manage it), it would be the shopkeepers option as to how many disabled parking spots are necessary for his customer base.

Nobody is really suggesting banning disabled parking spots entirely. That's not a real political debate. So, your analogy does not seem at all suited to...anything. I'm not sure what argument you are intending to make by association.

Is it that you believe that a ban on a possession is the only possible way to restrict use? That seems odd, but if that's your argument, I'll debate it.

cphite
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby cphite » Wed May 23, 2018 9:57 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
ucim wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Anyone care to defend possession bans as a result?
The video I saw of a demo of bump stocks shows me that it is pretty effective at turning a semi-auto into [what I imagine to be] a fully automatic machine gun. On philosophical grounds, if fully automatic machine guns are possession-banned, then it makes sense that bump stocks should be also.


Not particularly. The internals of the gun are not modified in the slightest. The principle is that the gun bounces, requiring somewhat less finger effort in order to pull the trigger again. The gun itself doesn't achieve a higher rate of fire or anything. Given that all guns have recoil, bump stock or no, you can get the same effect by holding the gun loosely enough that it bounces, or I suppose one could have a springy pad on the part of their clothes that stock presses against.


Ehh... not really. You might be able to reach the same rate of fire without one for a very short period of time, but you'll never sustain it. And you can pretty much forget about accuracy.

Speaking as someone who is very much pro-gun rights, I frankly cannot see any reason for anyone to own a bump stock. It allows you to shoot a whole lot of rounds really fast with horrible accuracy; and while I can see the novelty of doing that (in a very controlled setting while at some safe location) there really aren't any practical uses for it that aren't awful.

Now, because a bump stock does so little, the ban is probably not a big deal in any practical terms. But on the flip side, it's not really helpful either. It is somewhat similar to prior attempts to ban guns based on cosmetic features.


It's a feel-good measure. They really aren't used often enough that it'll have any meaningful affect on gun violence. Automatic weapons are very rarely used by anyone in crime because they're too difficult to control - it's not like in the movies, where people are firing tightly controlled streams at one another. They're really meant for suppression or covering fire, basically to control the movement of an enemy; or against a large enough force that accuracy is irrelevant.

Weapons that attempt to imitate automatic weapons are even more difficult to control, and therefore even less useful. That is why banning automatic weapons has very little affect on gun violence; so few people are using them in the first place. This will be the same.

I don't personally object to bump stocks being banned, because again, there is really no practical use for them that doesn't involve committing a crime; but at the same time, I don't see it having any meaningful effect on gun violence. It's like banning the Gatling gun; yeah, you probably don't want people using them, but they really aren't in the first place.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6165
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby Thesh » Wed May 23, 2018 10:25 pm UTC

The shooting in Nevada was a case where the legality of the bump stock itself led to more deaths. There are situations where fully automatic weapons are more effective, It's just that they tend to be only situations where you are shooting at a group of people.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9992
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby CorruptUser » Wed May 23, 2018 11:37 pm UTC

We also need to re-evaluate the culture that everyone grows up in. Showing a murder is ok for a PG-13 movie, maybe even a PG movie, but showing a nipple for more than a few seconds? What if a baby saw that female breast? Don't you know that almost all mass murderers in human history were exposed to female breasts as infants?!

We all grow up on the same action movies. There is no separate movie industry for different parts of the US, other than Utah, and what do our movies teach us about what it is to be a man? To be a badass, you are the hard-drinking cigar-chomping military dude with a machine gun that weighs almost as much as the scantily clad chick you are entitled to bang. This is the sort of culture that, while not being a cause of the school shootings in and of itself, is the source of the pig-headed honchos that end up buying Guns'n'Ammo magazine, that make up the roughage in the elongated turd that is the NRA.

Thoughts and prayers.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4540
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby LaserGuy » Thu May 24, 2018 6:18 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Gettin' a firearms thread goin', as while this is news, these topics tend to go long and detract from other news postings.

Anyways, it's been popular of late to ban bump stocks. For context, they were used in the Vegas shooting, and were otherwise pretty uncontroversial before then. They're a niche product, basically a range toy, and are a stock that is particularly springy. Anyways, in areas where the bans have happened, there has been a great lack of turning them in. So far, seven states have gotten on board with a ban, but in terms of practical effect, it does not seem to have any.

Note that these are bans on possession, not merely manufacture, so they more closely approximate gun-banning fears of firearm advocates, even though they apply to only a tiny niche of firearm accessories. Anyone care to defend possession bans as a result?

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/nobody_turned_in_their_bump_stocks_say_new_jersey_state_police


I think banning particular parts or modifications of guns is not really a sensible approach. It's a good way for politicians to be seen as doing something without actually really doing anything. If you ban a particular modification or product, sooner or later somebody is going to come up with something that is just different enough not to be covered by existing laws and then you're back to square one. Any regulation that you want to introduce needs to be more universal than that--background checks, training, licensing, safe storage, mandatory liability insurance, etc.--that sort of thing is where you can actually maybe get some measurable results (if, you know, it was legal to actually study gun violence :roll: ).

Tyndymr wrote:We have age restrictions on buying guns, just as we do on buying booze and cigs


The regulations around cigarettes and booze are much more restrictive than firearms. It is illegal to buy cigarettes or booze for a child. In most states it is legal to buy one a gun.

If that is the case, then it is logical and reasonable for gun advocates to oppose any and all gun legislation, compromise, and work to repeal all existing legislation. Also, probably, to work for government subsidy of the social views.


I think the idea that gun advocates would compromise on anything at this point is so far-fetched it isn't even worth considering. If people want gun control, they're just going to need to work around the NRA and their ilk. If the hundreds of dead bodies from shootings (this year) isn't enough to shame them into action, nothing is going to work.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11206
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu May 24, 2018 3:28 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
ucim wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Anyone care to defend possession bans as a result?
The video I saw of a demo of bump stocks shows me that it is pretty effective at turning a semi-auto into [what I imagine to be] a fully automatic machine gun. On philosophical grounds, if fully automatic machine guns are possession-banned, then it makes sense that bump stocks should be also.


Not particularly. The internals of the gun are not modified in the slightest. The principle is that the gun bounces, requiring somewhat less finger effort in order to pull the trigger again. The gun itself doesn't achieve a higher rate of fire or anything. Given that all guns have recoil, bump stock or no, you can get the same effect by holding the gun loosely enough that it bounces, or I suppose one could have a springy pad on the part of their clothes that stock presses against.


Ehh... not really. You might be able to reach the same rate of fire without one for a very short period of time, but you'll never sustain it. And you can pretty much forget about accuracy.

Speaking as someone who is very much pro-gun rights, I frankly cannot see any reason for anyone to own a bump stock. It allows you to shoot a whole lot of rounds really fast with horrible accuracy; and while I can see the novelty of doing that (in a very controlled setting while at some safe location) there really aren't any practical uses for it that aren't awful.


Oh, yeah, accuracy is garbage if shooting that way. Bump stock or just letting it bounce, either is wildly inaccurate. Sustaining rate of fire, eh, end of mag is pretty much a hard stop either way.

They're like 99% silly entertainment. You have to stretch pretty far for practical utility. The only thing I found was the arthritis thing, but even that seems to be pretty niche, and still mostly limited to making range fun more accessible.

I don't personally object to bump stocks being banned, because again, there is really no practical use for them that doesn't involve committing a crime; but at the same time, I don't see it having any meaningful effect on gun violence. It's like banning the Gatling gun; yeah, you probably don't want people using them, but they really aren't in the first place.


We're on the same page as far as the assessment goes of actual effect.

Thesh wrote:The shooting in Nevada was a case where the legality of the bump stock itself led to more deaths. There are situations where fully automatic weapons are more effective, It's just that they tend to be only situations where you are shooting at a group of people.


How do you know this?

Fewer than half the firearms he had with him had bump stocks, and none of the AR-10s were bump stock equipped. His overall rate of fire into the crowd was 1,100 rounds over 10 minutes. Basically, that's mag dumping one of his 100 round mags every minute. As he had more firearms with loaded mags than bullets he actually expended, he had no need to reload. That rate of fire is easily achievable using strictly semi-auto fire. If you listen to the audio, you hear variations in the rate of fire*.

IE, it sounds like it's mostly semi-auto fire.

If you're using a bump stock to simulate automatic fire, you get a steady, rapid rate. It sounds like he's shooting bursts(which you can do with or without a bump stock, and is a great deal more accurate than fully automatic fire). We could get a better idea of how relevant each weapon type was if they released the amount of empties found, but to the best of my knowledge, police have not done so(all bump-stock equipped weapons were .223, so any other kind of empty was not fired using a bump stock)

We know that the bump stocks were definitely there, and were probably used for at least some of it, but nobody has bothered to identify how many of the rounds were bump stock-fired, or correlate that with casualties, despite it being fairly easy for the police to do so.

*https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/02/us/vegas-guns.html

CorruptUser wrote:We also need to re-evaluate the culture that everyone grows up in. Showing a murder is ok for a PG-13 movie, maybe even a PG movie, but showing a nipple for more than a few seconds? What if a baby saw that female breast? Don't you know that almost all mass murderers in human history were exposed to female breasts as infants?!


Movie ratings and other forms of media puritanism such as the comics code have always been stupid.

That said, there doesn't seem to be a particular correlation with consumption of violent media and real world violence. Lots of folks have tried to blame say, violent video games for it, but the actual data connecting them is pretty sketchy. Watching a lot of action movies doesn't seem to inspire one to shoot up a school.

I mean, sure, movies are often not showing ideal morals, but if you're missing causation, feh.

This is the sort of culture that, while not being a cause of the school shootings in and of itself, is the source of the pig-headed honchos that end up buying Guns'n'Ammo magazine, that make up the roughage in the elongated turd that is the NRA.


It isn't NRA members shooting up schools.

LaserGuy wrote:
Tyndymr wrote:We have age restrictions on buying guns, just as we do on buying booze and cigs


The regulations around cigarettes and booze are much more restrictive than firearms. It is illegal to buy cigarettes or booze for a child. In most states it is legal to buy one a gun.


This is incorrect. Parents can generally legally give children alcohol. This is legal in 45 states. It is generally not the policy of restaurants/bars to allow this, but it is legal.

For comparison, in 30 states, it is legal for a child to own a rifle or shotgun(not pistols) with the same sort of parental assistance.

Cigarettes, it is generally illegal to sell them to anyone under eighteen. However, it is weirdly not illegal for someone under eighteen to buy them or consume them in most states. The selling laws do make buying more difficult, but a child buying cigarettes and smoking them, with or without parental approval, is generally not breaking any laws. So, if the adult is purchasing them, and the kid is smoking them, I'm not really sure that any law is being violated(barring more restrictive states/localities).

That's kinda odd, actually. I hadn't really thought about how little sense cigarette laws make.

I think the idea that gun advocates would compromise on anything at this point is so far-fetched it isn't even worth considering. If people want gun control, they're just going to need to work around the NRA and their ilk. If the hundreds of dead bodies from shootings (this year) isn't enough to shame them into action, nothing is going to work.


I mean...the bump stocks thing is a compromise? Us gun advocates don't see bump stock banning as a particularly important thing to fight for, but neither is it desirable. It's a compromise, allowing gun advocates to do comparatively little damage in their banning quest.

I don't know why the bodies would be shameful for the NRA. The NRA didn't kill them.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9992
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby CorruptUser » Thu May 24, 2018 4:11 pm UTC

But it is the NRA preventing any meaningful policy change that would make it harder for gun manufacturers to sell guns to absolutely everyone.

Imagine if I made a popular game called "Filly-Basher", a game where Filipinos are nothing more than savage beasts with no redeeming qualities and the player beats them senseless. Is the popularity just a symptom of underlying racism, does the game normalize the racism and make racists more comfortable being open about it, or does it create racist attitudes in people that were previously not racist?

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4540
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby LaserGuy » Thu May 24, 2018 4:53 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:I think the idea that gun advocates would compromise on anything at this point is so far-fetched it isn't even worth considering. If people want gun control, they're just going to need to work around the NRA and their ilk. If the hundreds of dead bodies from shootings (this year) isn't enough to shame them into action, nothing is going to work.


I mean...the bump stocks thing is a compromise? Us gun advocates don't see bump stock banning as a particularly important thing to fight for, but neither is it desirable. It's a compromise, allowing gun advocates to do comparatively little damage in their banning quest.

I don't know why the bodies would be shameful for the NRA. The NRA didn't kill them.


You mean the bump stock ban that gun rights groups are actively lobbying against? There is no compromise. Even the most inconsequential of changes are going to be fought tooth-and-nail by the gun lobby.

The NRA itself is suggesting that regulation on bump stocks be "reviewed" and in exchange is demanding universal concealed carry. Yeah, some compromise :roll:.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11206
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu May 24, 2018 6:10 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:I think the idea that gun advocates would compromise on anything at this point is so far-fetched it isn't even worth considering. If people want gun control, they're just going to need to work around the NRA and their ilk. If the hundreds of dead bodies from shootings (this year) isn't enough to shame them into action, nothing is going to work.


I mean...the bump stocks thing is a compromise? Us gun advocates don't see bump stock banning as a particularly important thing to fight for, but neither is it desirable. It's a compromise, allowing gun advocates to do comparatively little damage in their banning quest.

I don't know why the bodies would be shameful for the NRA. The NRA didn't kill them.


You mean the bump stock ban that gun rights groups are actively lobbying against? There is no compromise. Even the most inconsequential of changes are going to be fought tooth-and-nail by the gun lobby.

The NRA itself is suggesting that regulation on bump stocks be "reviewed" and in exchange is demanding universal concealed carry. Yeah, some compromise :roll:.


The NRA statement on bump stocks can be found here: https://home.nra.org/joint-statement

"The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations. "

Yes, yes, they would like something in exchange. That is sort of how compromise works. If your side gets everything you want and give up nothing, that's not much of a compromise, now is it?

CorruptUser wrote:But it is the NRA preventing any meaningful policy change that would make it harder for gun manufacturers to sell guns to absolutely everyone.


The NRA is very, very on board with punishing criminals who use guns. The NRA is not particularly on board with sweeping restrictions aimed at preventing its members from buying guns. The two groups are almost wholly distinct.

It is hardly the NRA's fault that banners cannot seem to make a proposal that targets the former instead of the latter.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4540
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby LaserGuy » Thu May 24, 2018 6:40 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:The NRA statement on bump stocks can be found here: https://home.nra.org/joint-statement

"The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations. "


Yeah, I read it. This is the action they want taken "the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law. "

Yes, yes, they would like something in exchange. That is sort of how compromise works. If your side gets everything you want and give up nothing, that's not much of a compromise, now is it?


They would like to completely undermine existing gun regulations in dozens of states in exchange for having an insignificant piece of hardware comply with existing laws. That's not a compromise. That's a bait-and-switch. The NRA isn't giving anything up; they're just demanding more.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9992
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby CorruptUser » Thu May 24, 2018 6:49 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:The NRA is very, very on board with punishing criminals who use guns. The NRA is not particularly on board with sweeping restrictions aimed at preventing its members from buying guns. The two groups are almost wholly distinct.

It is hardly the NRA's fault that banners cannot seem to make a proposal that targets the former instead of the latter.


The NRA is not on board with background checks for gun purchases, especially transfers between "friends", as well as gun registries, so your argument has the hole in it that, regardless of punishment, the NRA is doing little to prevent criminals from acquiring the guns in the first place.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11206
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu May 24, 2018 7:00 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:The NRA is very, very on board with punishing criminals who use guns. The NRA is not particularly on board with sweeping restrictions aimed at preventing its members from buying guns. The two groups are almost wholly distinct.

It is hardly the NRA's fault that banners cannot seem to make a proposal that targets the former instead of the latter.


The NRA is not on board with background checks for gun purchases, especially transfers between "friends", as well as gun registries, so your argument has the hole in it that, regardless of punishment, the NRA is doing little to prevent criminals from acquiring the guns in the first place.


The current background checks are considered to be fine. The lack of enforcement by federal government of them is considered to be pretty awful, and they certainly oppose any sort of registry of legitimate gun owners.

Criminals can acquire guns via many ways. Straw purchases are already illegal, but the government has largely not enforced this, despite the gun owning community's desire for it. Failed background checks are generally not followed up on, and many states do not even submit the required information to make the background checks fail to begin with.

If you want to prevent criminal acquisition, you have far lower hanging fruit that targeting legitimate gun owners for additional legislation. The anti-gunners do not appear to care about this.

LaserGuy wrote:They would like to completely undermine existing gun regulations in dozens of states in exchange for having an insignificant piece of hardware comply with existing laws. That's not a compromise. That's a bait-and-switch. The NRA isn't giving anything up; they're just demanding more.


The thing they are angling for is much better than any restrictions on bump stocks would hurt, I agree. The NRA is asking for a compromise weighted in its favor.

But it's still something for something. One could attempt to negotiate a different deal, I suppose. But something would have to be traded. If you want to try banning bump stocks, cool. It won't fix it, but if you're sure, then getting rid of a previous failed attempt would be fair. Doesn't have to specifically be carry reciprocity, but you do have to offer something. Gun banners do not feel they should have to do so, though. They don't advocate any tradeoff at all.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4540
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby LaserGuy » Thu May 24, 2018 7:50 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Criminals can acquire guns via many ways. Straw purchases are already illegal, but the government has largely not enforced this, despite the gun owning community's desire for it. Failed background checks are generally not followed up on, and many states do not even submit the required information to make the background checks fail to begin with.


The easiest way to do this would be to repeal the Tiahrt Amendments, since these make it essentially impossible to prosecute the gun dealers involved in trafficking. Good luck getting the NRA on board with that one.

The NRA is very, very on board with punishing criminals who use guns. The NRA is not particularly on board with sweeping restrictions aimed at preventing its members from buying guns. The two groups are almost wholly distinct.


Gun control is about preventing crime before it happens. Punishing criminals after-the-fact does not help the people who are already dead.

But it's still something for something. One could attempt to negotiate a different deal, I suppose. But something would have to be traded. If you want to try banning bump stocks, cool. It won't fix it, but if you're sure, then getting rid of a previous failed attempt would be fair. Doesn't have to specifically be carry reciprocity, but you do have to offer something. Gun banners do not feel they should have to do so, though. They don't advocate any tradeoff at all.


The trade is more gun control for fewer dead people. The United States already has extremely lax gun control laws by international standards.

User avatar
Ranbot
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:39 pm UTC

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby Ranbot » Thu May 24, 2018 8:03 pm UTC

The bump stock discussion seems like beating a dead horse by now...

Tyndmyr wrote:The current background checks are considered to be fine. The lack of enforcement by federal government of them is considered to be pretty awful, and they certainly oppose any sort of registry of legitimate gun owners.

Criminals can acquire guns via many ways. Straw purchases are already illegal, but the government has largely not enforced this, despite the gun owning community's desire for it. Failed background checks are generally not followed up on, and many states do not even submit the required information to make the background checks fail to begin with.

If you want to prevent criminal acquisition, you have far lower hanging fruit that targeting legitimate gun owners for additional legislation. The anti-gunners do not appear to care about this.

So, good points about the gaping holes in the background check system. Clearly it doesn't work or it doesn't work well enough and I'm not sure if there will be a way to fix background checks. But there are other ways to tackle this....

Vermont recently passed some significant gun control legislation that does several things. Most are pretty common-sense things, which you can read in the article, but the most controversial, and will surely be wrangled over in court, is [quote from article] "...the "extreme risk" bill...creates a court process to require people to relinquish their firearms for up to six months if they are at "extreme risk" of suicide or violence. Vermont courts will be able to immediately process "extreme risk" cases... [And] H. 422, the bill that expands police officers' power to remove firearms from the scene of a domestic assault arrest, is set to take effect Sept. 1. "

What I think these measures recognize is the background check system is broken and not effective at keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people. The next stop-gap measure to authorize courts and police to remove guns from the possession of people who demonstrate they are a potential danger. From the pro-gun side of the table that's literally the government taking guns out of the hands of citizens, possibly even citizens that haven't committed a crime yet. Basically the NRA's worst fear/boogeyman has come to life in Vermont. What's also interesting is that Vermont has historically been very gun-friendly due to very rural population with a strong hunting culture. New sweeping gun control laws of this significance suddenly appearing in a state that was fairly gun-friendly had to be surprising to gun-rights advocates and questioning what unexpected place the next crack in their wall will appear.

Personally, I'm not against these measures that allow police and courts to take guns from people deemed dangerous or involved in a domestic assault. I see these the next low-hanging fruit after background checks, which don't work. We trust our courts and police with a lot of responsibility for the sake of public safety already, such that this as a practical matter this doesn't seem like that big of a step... but as a legal or philosophical matter, it's really significant.

Leovan
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:31 pm UTC

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby Leovan » Thu May 24, 2018 8:46 pm UTC

Wouldn't this predominantly affect black people and other minorities like most measures that give the courts and police more power to punish without oversight? Republicans can then gleefully point to statistics.

User avatar
Ranbot
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:39 pm UTC

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby Ranbot » Thu May 24, 2018 9:06 pm UTC

Leovan wrote:Wouldn't this predominantly affect black people and other minorities like most measures that give the courts and police more power to punish without oversight? Republicans can then gleefully point to statistics.

Vermont probably won't be a suitable test case for that theory, because Vermont is the whitest state in the US. To have an impact on minorities, first you need to have minorities. :lol:

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11206
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu May 24, 2018 9:09 pm UTC

Leovan wrote:Wouldn't this predominantly affect black people and other minorities like most measures that give the courts and police more power to punish without oversight? Republicans can then gleefully point to statistics.


There have been problems with circumvention of due process by law enforcement, yeah. Particularly with regard to minorities.

A lot of states have some sort of temporary firearm-holding setup for those who are mentally unwell to a degree posing a danger to themselves/others. In theory, this also ought to be reported by the states to the checking system so they cannot buy new ones. Existing law. In practice, results are often not great.

This particular setup is a court process, which seems better than some. Better than just a police decision, anyways. Not saying that the courts are always fair, mind you, but at least it's some oversight, and at least it's temporary. It can probably still be abused, but those safeguards are better than some.

That said, Vermont does have some problems already for mental health reporting. It didn't report anything to NCIS until 2015. It reports involuntary, court ordered treatment now, but as it didn't beforehand, it is likely that Vermont's records are not super great.

LaserGuy wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Criminals can acquire guns via many ways. Straw purchases are already illegal, but the government has largely not enforced this, despite the gun owning community's desire for it. Failed background checks are generally not followed up on, and many states do not even submit the required information to make the background checks fail to begin with.


The easiest way to do this would be to repeal the Tiahrt Amendments, since these make it essentially impossible to prosecute the gun dealers involved in trafficking. Good luck getting the NRA on board with that one.


....why is everything about passing a law to persecute gun folks?

Look, you have a background check process right now, yes? If they fail it, in almost every case, they can be prosecuted. Existing law, no new laws needed whatsoever. Far less than 1% of them are. The federal numbers were about 40 folks for about 72,000 failures*. So, about 1 in 500 odds of someone illegally trying to get a gun actually having the government try to put 'em in jail**.

So, if you have literally tens of thousands of open and shut cases of illegal firearm acquisition....why make a new law to ban more? No law is needed to immediately start making headway here. Just, yknow, enforcement.

*2010 numbers. A lot of this data is a bit on the older side, unfortunately. Delays of years for getting criminal information appears to be annoyingly common where data exists at all.

**This is strictly fed numbers, some states do their own checks, and some states also prosecute a few people. Specific numbers may change slightly depending on preferred data set, but the conclusion that very little illegal activity is prosecuted remains constant, with a minor exception for one or two republican states. PA, for instance, recently had a "investigate every failed check" at the state level that managed to significantly increase prosecutions.

LaserGuy wrote:The trade is more gun control for fewer dead people. The United States already has extremely lax gun control laws by international standards.


That's like anti-abortion advocates saying that they want to compromise by trading more abortion restrictions for fewer dead babies. It's a blatant failure to understand the point of view of the opposition. So, yknow, not a compromise at all.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4540
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby LaserGuy » Thu May 24, 2018 9:45 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Criminals can acquire guns via many ways. Straw purchases are already illegal, but the government has largely not enforced this, despite the gun owning community's desire for it. Failed background checks are generally not followed up on, and many states do not even submit the required information to make the background checks fail to begin with.


The easiest way to do this would be to repeal the Tiahrt Amendments, since these make it essentially impossible to prosecute the gun dealers involved in trafficking. Good luck getting the NRA on board with that one.


....why is everything about passing a law to persecute gun folks?


This isn't about "gun folks". It's about the people who sell guns. The majority of guns used in crime were originally purchased legally. However:
[P]ast research has demonstrated that a small fraction of gun dealers are responsible for the majority of guns used in crimes in the United States. A 2000 report from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms found that in 1998, more than 85 percent of gun dealers had no guns used in crimes trace back to them. By contrast, 1 percent of dealers accounted for nearly 6 in 10 crime gun traces that year.

The firearms bureau knows exactly who these gun dealers are — but they're not allowed to share that information with policymakers or researchers due to a law passed by Congress in 2003. As a result, solutions for stanching the flow of guns from these dealers to crime scenes remain frustratingly out of reach for public-health researchers.


1% of gun dealers are responsible for 60% of illegal guns, and yet police can't do anything about those people because they are hamstrung by legislation and poor data.

LaserGuy wrote:The trade is more gun control for fewer dead people. The United States already has extremely lax gun control laws by international standards.


That's like anti-abortion advocates saying that they want to compromise by trading more abortion restrictions for fewer dead babies. It's a blatant failure to understand the point of view of the opposition. So, yknow, not a compromise at all.


The United States has a gun problem that is not shared by any other developed country in the world.
The review of 2010 World Health Organization data also revealed that despite having a similar rate of nonlethal crimes as those countries, the United States has a much higher rate of deadly violence, mostly due to the higher rate of gun-related murders.

Even though it has half the population of the other 22 nations combined, the United States accounted for 82 percent of all gun deaths. The United States also accounted for 90 percent of all women killed by guns, the study found. Ninety-one percent of children under 14 who died by gun violence were in the United States. And 92 percent of young people between ages 15 and 24 killed by guns were in the United States, the study found.

Just a note, it is not the case that these deaths are made up by other causes in the rest of the world. The homicide rate in the United States is seven times the average of the other 22 nations. The number of homicides due to guns alone in the United States is ~4 times the average homicide rate due to all causes in the rest of the developed world.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11206
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu May 24, 2018 10:13 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:This isn't about "gun folks". It's about the people who sell guns. The majority of guns used in crime were originally purchased legally.


Okay, and if the background system worked, in that states put data in, and illegal purchase attempts were followed up on, you could impact that.

In any case, guns are not generally legally purchased from gun dealers for use in crime, as you seem to propose.

A study in Philly(a similar one exists for chicago)* definitively identified 30% of illegally carried firearms as stolen, and a total of 79% of firearms carried did not belong to the carrier at all(an additional few, they couldn't verify, leaving only 18% identified as owned by the carrier by any means). Stolen, "lost", or what have you, it wasn't purchased from a shop.

* http://www.socialmedicine.info/index.ph ... w/852/1649

1% of gun dealers are responsible for 60% of illegal guns, and yet police can't do anything about those people because they are hamstrung by legislation and poor data.


I actually live pretty close to one of those "worst gun dealers". Invariably, these gun dealers exist in close proximity to high crime, high population areas(in this case, near DC, on the way to Baltimore), in or near high-gun control areas. So, you have very few gun dealers in proximity to a high gun crime area.

Also, you're relying on 20 year old data for that claim. It's also 57% of 'crime guns', and 1.2% of licensed dealers. Note that "crime gun" merely means that the gun was used in a crime. It does not indicate that the dealer sold it to the criminal. It was just the starting point for that gun's path. The average time between sale and when a gun is used in a crime is over ten years. Large stores, stores that have been open a long time, stores near high population/high crime areas are obviously going to score ludicrously higher than small-time rural dealers.

Note that we're also dealing with modestly small numbers of crime guns, and large numbers of firearm dealers. The most common, by far, number of crime guns any dealer sold was zero. It's a rare event. Thus, if your number is anything other than zero, you're automatically in the top handful of shops.

The United States has a gun problem that is not shared by any other developed country in the world.


And I'm sure that anti-abortion advocates insist that the US has an abortion problem.

If it's a problem or not, in either case, depends entirely on which side you're on. A high rate of gun ownership is, obviously, not viewed as a problem by gun advocates. Neither does the gun violence rate matter to them. Only the overall rates of violence. Death is death, whatever the instrument. High rates of murder? Problem. What percentage of murder is by a gun? Not a big deal.

Now, the US is kind of violent, and that's generally recognized as a problem, but it doesn't track to gun ownership rates over history. Neither does gun ownership rate correlate to deaths if one compares various developed countries. Norway has the highest private gun ownership rate in Europe, but it's murder rate is quite low. It seems likely that rates of murder and violent crime in the US stem from other causes, such as, perhaps, the way the US treats minorities.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4540
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby LaserGuy » Thu May 24, 2018 10:26 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Norway has the highest private gun ownership rate in Europe, but it's murder rate is quite low. It seems likely that rates of murder and violent crime in the US stem from other causes, such as, perhaps, the way the US treats minorities.


Or maybe it's because Norway has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world.
A licence is required to own a gun, and the owner must provide a written statement saying why he or she wants one. Many categories of guns, including automatics and some powerful handguns, are banned from sale altogether.

Hunting and outdoor sports are popular in Norway. But the laws are strict in these areas, too. Shotguns and rifles must be stored in a secure place, typically a specially designed gun safe, as must ammunition. Police have the right to inspect an owner's home to ensure the law is being followed.

Transporting a weapon to a public place is also covered by legislation. The owner must have a good reason for carrying a weapon, must ensure it is unloaded and concealed from view, but not worn on the body, and must keep the weapon under constant supervision.

Under the Firearm Weapons Act, only "sober and responsible" persons over the age of 18 may obtain a gun licence. For handguns, the age requirement is 21. In 2009, additional legislation was introduced, further tightening Norway's gun laws.


Also:
There are special rules for collectors of guns. They are exempt from many parts of the regulation, but, in turn, they must meet even more narrow qualifications. Collectors may purchase, but not fire without permission, all kinds of guns in their respective areas of interest, which they have defined in advance.

An applicant must have a clean police record in order to obtain an ownership license.

To obtain a hunting license, the applicant must complete a 30-hour, 9-session course and pass a written multiple choice exam. The course includes firearm theory, firearm training, wildlife theory, and environmental protection training.

Once the exam is passed, the applicant may enroll in the hunter registry and receive a hunting license. The membership must be renewed each year, through license payment. The hunting license is brought to the police station, where the applicant fills out an application for obtaining the proper firearm for his or her hunt. After evaluation, part of the application is sent back to the applicant if it was approved. Upon approval, the applicant can take the returned form to the store and purchase the firearm listed in the application.

The qualification process for sporting is theoretically easier, but requires more time and practice. The applicant must enroll in a firearm safety course, lasting at least 9 hours. The course includes a written test, but is shorter than the hunting exam, as it only deals with firearm safety. Two thirds of the course are completed on the shooting range as practice. The passing of the test results in acceptance to the approved gun club, and a license for competition. However, while the hunters can obtain their firearm almost at once, sports shooters must prove their intentions to compete by actively training or competing in the gun club. This means regular attendance (at least 15 times) at gun club training over the course of six months. The applicant must use firearms owned by the club or borrowed at the range for this period. After six months, the applicant may apply for weapon ownership. The start license and a written recommendation from the gun club president are brought to the police station, and the competition class is filled out on the application. If approved, it will be returned to the applicant as with the hunter license.


Apparently such laws are not considered arduous to Norwegians. Would you be in favor of importing them to the United States?

Police in Norway do not carry guns, btw.

[edit]Also, Norway is moving to ban all semi-automatic firearms.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11206
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu May 24, 2018 10:31 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:Apparently such laws are not considered arduous to Norwegians. Would you be in favor of importing them to the United States?

Police in Norway do not carry guns, btw.


I think we first ought to get our police to Norway levels. I happen to live in an area where permits are granted at the pleasure of the police. The answer is generally no, unless you happen to be a wealthy businessman who wants it to protect money. This isn't hyperbole, they straight up acknowledge it if you talk to them.

You can have any kind of laws in the world, but execution matters a great deal. Passing laws granting the police a lot more power....no, no I definitely don't think the US should do that. Nor do I think it would fix the US's violence problem if we did.

The sobriety bit is already a thing, by the way.

User avatar
Ranbot
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:39 pm UTC

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby Ranbot » Fri May 25, 2018 12:34 pm UTC

What if the US just got to Australia levels of gun regulation? A country that spans an entire continent, democratic style of governance, English speaking, former colony of England, a nation with one of the larger economies in the world, contains a mix of modern urban areas and vast rural and agricultural areas where gun ownership is part of the culture..... sound familiar? :P

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11206
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri May 25, 2018 4:20 pm UTC

Ranbot wrote:What if the US just got to Australia levels of gun regulation? A country that spans an entire continent, democratic style of governance, English speaking, former colony of England, a nation with one of the larger economies in the world, contains a mix of modern urban areas and vast rural and agricultural areas where gun ownership is part of the culture..... sound familiar? :P


To what end?

Gun regulation isn't a good thing in itself. No regulation is, really. Australia has fairly low violence rates but...they've been decreasing steadily for 25 years, which predates their gun ban/confiscation attempt. Fans of gun banning would love to give the gun ban credit for it, but...it could easily be something else, and the trends that predated the gun banning pretty much have to be, causality not working backward and all.

And, even if you accept that somehow, guns are connected to the decreasing homicide rates in Australia, gun ownership rates are increasing, not decreasing in Australia. The country has about 50% more guns per person than they did when they passed the 1996 ban.

So, the proposed causality of "lots of gun regulation" -> fewer firearms/gun culture -> fewer murders cannot possibly be true.

I'm all for seeking out a lower murder rate, but the gun-banning explanation for how to get there doesn't fly.

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1254
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby freezeblade » Fri May 25, 2018 4:27 pm UTC

I fail to see how "Less guns around = less gun deaths" doesn't at least correlate in your world?
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11206
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri May 25, 2018 4:55 pm UTC

freezeblade wrote:I fail to see how "Less guns around = less gun deaths" doesn't at least correlate in your world?


Since folks brought up Australia, you've got a country with rising gun ownership and falling murders(1996 is when they passed their big firearm legislation, both effects have been pretty consistent since then).

They don't correlate because the numbers don't. It's math. My opinion has fuck-all to do with it.

Also, while it's not essential for this examples, I will point out, again, that focusing on "gun deaths", and ignoring the overall murder rate is fairly pointless. Overall murder rate(gun deaths and otherwise) is what matters. If you have lowered the number of murders categorized as "gun deaths", but murders have risen, you haven't actually improved society. You've just shuffled numbers around while people die.

cphite
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby cphite » Fri May 25, 2018 5:23 pm UTC

freezeblade wrote:I fail to see how "Less guns around = less gun deaths" doesn't at least correlate in your world?


Well, as he already pointed out, Australia has more guns in the hands of citizens than they did 20 years ago, and yet their rate of gun related deaths continues to decrease.

And if you look at gun ownership in the USA by state, there is really no correlation between number of guns and rate of gun violence; for example Delaware has the least number of gun owners by percentage of population in the US, but they rank 7th in murders involving guns.

What does correlate (very strongly) with the rate of gun murders state by state, is the overall murder rate state by state. In other words, the states where you're more likely to be murdered with a gun are the states where you're more likely to be murdered with or without a gun. The same correlation exists if you look at individual cities.

Much like the Australia example, the overall crime rate has far more to do with the rate of gun violence, than does the number of guns.

The point is, if you really want to decrease the rate of murders and other violence, you have to address the root of the problem: The people who are committing murders and other acts violence. Writing more and more laws that only target peaceful, law-abiding citizens isn't going to do it.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11206
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Firearms Regulations

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri May 25, 2018 5:39 pm UTC

cphite wrote:What does correlate (very strongly) with the rate of gun murders state by state, is the overall murder rate state by state. In other words, the states where you're more likely to be murdered with a gun are the states where you're more likely to be murdered with or without a gun. The same correlation exists if you look at individual cities.


Oh, agreed. And that makes sense, because murder by gun is a significant subcategory of murder. One would expect correlation.

Which isn't entirely a comforting thing. One conclusion is that US folks are just more murdery in general. Probably deeper problems there.

But anyway, to bring it back around to the gun legislation thing, if you want to deny access to would-be murderers, people in general are on board with that. It doesn't wholly fix the problem of someone wanting to murder a whole bunch of people, but maybe it limits ability. But mass murderers are not NRA members and their ilk. They do often have access to guns, but they are not part of the pro-gun culture at large.

It's actually odd that no NRA members have been mass shooters. Just going by frequency of events and percentage of the population that belongs to the NRA, you'd expect that at least one of them would have been by now. Granted, we're extrapolating from somewhat infrequent events, but so far, the membership groups of "NRA member" and "mass killer" appear to be entirely exclusive. Not just uncorrelated, but a strong negative correlation.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests