Gun Control

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

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

dshizzle
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:45 am UTC

Gun Control

Postby dshizzle » Thu Aug 02, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

I am interested to know the opinions on Gun Control of the forum. Please include the following.

1) Your experience with firearms.
2) Your opinion on Gun Control laws, national, state whatever.
3) Your general political persuasion.

Myself
1) Familiar with guns from a young age, military family. Own an Ar-15 a handgun and several shotguns. I thoroughly enjoy shooting and hunting.
2) I think that people should be able to own and carry firearms for the sake of hunting, self protection both from criminals and government, with some basic provisions.
a) Not convicted of a felony.
b) Of sound mental condition.
c) Purchasing a firearm requires a short waiting period to prevent poor judgement decisions.
d) Be 21 or older.

These issues while included in most U.S. states gun laws are poorly enforced. I live in the state of Maryland and the state requires that you receive a background check and disclose your health records to the state police to purchase certain firearms. Few hospitals however keep detailed enough records, and law enforcement does not look hard enough to catch some of the mentally ill.
3) Libertarian
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. - Feynman

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Gun Control

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Aug 02, 2012 2:35 pm UTC

... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

dshizzle
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:45 am UTC

Postby dshizzle » Thu Aug 02, 2012 2:39 pm UTC

Well that was far closer to my opinions than I was expecting to see. My experience is that usually college educated people tend to balk at the idea of firearms. My main purpose for this thread is that I find generally gun control arguements tend to fall into the soccer mom "NO MURDER WEAPONS YOULL KILL MY POOR BABIES." Or NRA "YOU CANT TAKE MAH GUN RIAAGHTS THAT DAMN OBAAAMA." Would be kind of cool to hear the more intelligent perspectives from both sides.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. - Feynman

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:26 pm UTC

dshizzle wrote:I am interested to know the opinions on Gun Control of the forum. Please include the following.

1) Your experience with firearms.


I do not remember a time before firing a firearm. I do know I received my first firearm at age 12 as a birthday present. Eight years military experience, have been a firearms safety instructor. Able to build functional firearms from scratch, if need be. Would describe myself as reasonably experienced.

2) Your opinion on Gun Control laws, national, state whatever.


If a referendum was announced that legalized ownership of howitzers for the general populace with no background checks or registries of any kind, I'd support it.

However, am perfectly ok with firearms limitations being part of criminal sentencing, where appropriate. The hacker has access to computers limited, the serial killer should have his access to weapons limited. 'tis fair and practical. Limiting the access of the hacker to weapons or the serial killer to computers, on the other hand, is sloppy, and does not make sense.

Am ok with the temporary limitations on mentally unstable people until they have recovered. If you can't be trusted with keys to a car, you probably also can't be trusted with a handgun.

3) Your general political persuasion.


Libertarian.

dshizzle
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:45 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby dshizzle » Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:34 pm UTC

No.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. - Feynman

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Gun Control

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:52 pm UTC

No.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Aug 02, 2012 3:59 pm UTC

You are, of course, welcome to disagree. I happily recognize that plenty of NRA members would raise an eyebrow at that suggestion.

If you like, I'll gladly justify it. Here goes.

1. Crimes don't happen with expensive, weird guns. Statistically speaking, basically all gun crime happens with moderately to cheaply priced handguns. This is entirely the opposite end of the spectrum.
2. It makes me sad when historical weapons are mutilated and ruined.
3. It's bound to end up on a Mythbuster's episode, and I want that in my eyes.

dshizzle
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:45 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby dshizzle » Thu Aug 02, 2012 4:03 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:You are, of course, welcome to disagree. I happily recognize that plenty of NRA members would raise an eyebrow at that suggestion.

If you like, I'll gladly justify it. Here goes.

1. Crimes don't happen with expensive, weird guns. Statistically speaking, basically all gun crime happens with moderately to cheaply priced handguns. This is entirely the opposite end of the spectrum.
2. It makes me sad when historical weapons are mutilated and ruined.
3. It's bound to end up on a Mythbuster's episode, and I want that in my eyes.


Interesting fact as far as I know a felony has never been committed in the U.S. using .50 BMG although its at the top of the list of most ban lists. Meanwhile little ole .22 which is allowed in every state is the choice of criminals everywhere due to it's low cost and low decibel report.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. - Feynman

dshizzle
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:45 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby dshizzle » Thu Aug 02, 2012 4:05 pm UTC

No.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. - Feynman

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Aug 02, 2012 4:10 pm UTC

dshizzle wrote:Interesting fact as far as I know a felony has never been committed in the U.S. using .50 BMG although its at the top of the list of most ban lists. Meanwhile little ole .22 which is allowed in every state is the choice of criminals everywhere due to it's low cost and low decibel report.


The barrett and similar guns are amazing pieces of technology, and quite impressive. That said...it's reasonable. A weapon you have to pay more for than most vehicles on the road, that weighs over thirty pounds, and is roughly the least concealable thing ever made is spectacularly unsuited to crime. It's kind of the opposite of subtle. :)

I read somewhere that on a "rounds fired at humans" basis, the .22 tops the lethality charts...not because it's powerful(it isn't), but because it's accurate, and even a novice shooter isn't going to sweat recoil. Not sure if it's true, but it does seem plausible.

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re:

Postby ahammel » Thu Aug 02, 2012 4:11 pm UTC

dshizzle wrote: My main purpose for this thread is that I find generally gun control arguements tend to fall into the soccer mom "NO MURDER WEAPONS YOULL KILL MY POOR BABIES." Or NRA "YOU CANT TAKE MAH GUN RIAAGHTS THAT DAMN OBAAAMA."
Sounds like a US thing. We recently had a bit of a row about a gun registry project up here in Canuckistan. Opinions amongst the political parties ranged from "it's really expensive and ineffective, so lets scrap it and find a better solution" to "it's really expensive and ineffective, so let's forget it" (we went with the latter).

I don't have a problem with putting reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, but it's not something I feel particularly strongly about. Requiring prospective gun owners to demonstrate that they know how to use one without punching holes in people sounds reasonable enough to me. (Having never held or fired a gun, I would not, at present, pass that test.)
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

dshizzle
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:45 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby dshizzle » Thu Aug 02, 2012 4:15 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
dshizzle wrote:Interesting fact as far as I know a felony has never been committed in the U.S. using .50 BMG although its at the top of the list of most ban lists. Meanwhile little ole .22 which is allowed in every state is the choice of criminals everywhere due to it's low cost and low decibel report.


The barrett and similar guns are amazing pieces of technology, and quite impressive. That said...it's reasonable. A weapon you have to pay more for than most vehicles on the road, that weighs over thirty pounds, and is roughly the least concealable thing ever made is spectacularly unsuited to crime. It's kind of the opposite of subtle. :)

I read somewhere that on a "rounds fired at humans" basis, the .22 tops the lethality charts...not because it's powerful(it isn't), but because it's accurate, and even a novice shooter isn't going to sweat recoil. Not sure if it's true, but it does seem plausible.


I think it has most to do with the type of shooting. Theres a huge difference between me using my 9mm defensively and a thug using a .22. I intend to shoot for center of mass and stop shooting as soon as the person is no longer a threat, meanwhile the person with the .22 intends to kill you i.e put the entire mag in your head at close range. The person I shoot has a great chance of surviving, I'm going to give him first aid and call an ambulance as soon as hes not a threat, the target of the thug will not be so lucky in most cases.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. - Feynman

cphite
Posts: 1362
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby cphite » Thu Aug 02, 2012 4:57 pm UTC

dshizzle wrote:I am interested to know the opinions on Gun Control of the forum. Please include the following.

1) Your experience with firearms.


Grew up with them. Lots of hunters and sport shooters in my family and surrounding area. Was taught from a very early age to shoot. Was also taught from a very early age to respect firearms; always treat it as if it's loaded, never point it at anything that you don't intend to shoot, etc.

2) Your opinion on Gun Control laws, national, state whatever.


I believe in the right to bear arms; however, I also believe that gun safety courses should be mandatory for anyone who wants to own one. I'd also like to see more strict rules about criminals and people with certain psychological problems obtaining them.

3) Your general political persuasion.


Independent conservative.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Re:

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Aug 02, 2012 5:06 pm UTC

ahammel wrote:
dshizzle wrote: My main purpose for this thread is that I find generally gun control arguements tend to fall into the soccer mom "NO MURDER WEAPONS YOULL KILL MY POOR BABIES." Or NRA "YOU CANT TAKE MAH GUN RIAAGHTS THAT DAMN OBAAAMA."
Sounds like a US thing. We recently had a bit of a row about a gun registry project up here in Canuckistan. Opinions amongst the political parties ranged from "it's really expensive and ineffective, so lets scrap it and find a better solution" to "it's really expensive and ineffective, so let's forget it" (we went with the latter).

I don't have a problem with putting reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, but it's not something I feel particularly strongly about. Requiring prospective gun owners to demonstrate that they know how to use one without punching holes in people sounds reasonable enough to me. (Having never held or fired a gun, I would not, at present, pass that test.)


We do frequently get ridiculously partisan. I blame it on the whole two party system, but hey, that's life. Wierdly enough, in some specific ways, the US can be more stringent than countries that are often thought of as having strict gun control. For instance, silencers are a bit problematic to get in the states, but in plenty of european countries, they're not a big deal(though the guns usually are). This is probably another instance where we could improve, as while they don't kill all the sound, they definitely reduce noise pollution.

dshizzle wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
dshizzle wrote:Interesting fact as far as I know a felony has never been committed in the U.S. using .50 BMG although its at the top of the list of most ban lists. Meanwhile little ole .22 which is allowed in every state is the choice of criminals everywhere due to it's low cost and low decibel report.


The barrett and similar guns are amazing pieces of technology, and quite impressive. That said...it's reasonable. A weapon you have to pay more for than most vehicles on the road, that weighs over thirty pounds, and is roughly the least concealable thing ever made is spectacularly unsuited to crime. It's kind of the opposite of subtle. :)

I read somewhere that on a "rounds fired at humans" basis, the .22 tops the lethality charts...not because it's powerful(it isn't), but because it's accurate, and even a novice shooter isn't going to sweat recoil. Not sure if it's true, but it does seem plausible.


I think it has most to do with the type of shooting. Theres a huge difference between me using my 9mm defensively and a thug using a .22. I intend to shoot for center of mass and stop shooting as soon as the person is no longer a threat, meanwhile the person with the .22 intends to kill you i.e put the entire mag in your head at close range. The person I shoot has a great chance of surviving, I'm going to give him first aid and call an ambulance as soon as hes not a threat, the target of the thug will not be so lucky in most cases.


Most likely. Obviously, training and using an appropriate caliber is the way to go as a practical course of action, of course. Rounds/caliber/gun can't ever really compensate entirely for an untrained shooter.

dshizzle
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:45 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby dshizzle » Thu Aug 02, 2012 5:16 pm UTC

Most likely. Obviously, training and using an appropriate caliber is the way to go as a practical course of action, of course. Rounds/caliber/gun can't ever really compensate entirely for an untrained shooter.


People have serious issues understanding this.

[end]
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. - Feynman

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby omgryebread » Thu Aug 02, 2012 10:49 pm UTC

Oh this should be fun.

dshizzle wrote:I am interested to know the opinions on Gun Control of the forum. Please include the following.

1) Your experience with firearms.
2) Your opinion on Gun Control laws, national, state whatever.
3) Your general political persuasion.


1) Fired one once. Grew up with non-immediate family (second cousins and out) that like guns, a lot. They are very responsible with them. I'm actually not legally allowed to own them.

2) Pretty heavily pro-gun-control. I'll talk about it.

3) Democratic party, left wing. Take a generic liberal Democrat, and my policy preferences will be almost identical.


Okay, so if I were dictator, guns would be almost entirely banned for the general population. Hunting or sport rifles and shotguns would be legal, but heavily restricted. To buy a gun, you'd have to have a psychological evaluation and training. Once you're certified and you go to buy the gun, you'd have a 6 month waiting period. Once you own it, it would have to stay unloaded when not in use. It must remain at home in a locked safe, unless you're transporting it for hunting, training, repair, sport, or another legitimate purpose. Sale of ammunition would be restricted and tracked. (Is it possible in some way to make bullets that could be identified once used? So that if used in a crime, a bullet could be matched against a database that shows ammunition sold, and the individual who bought it identified?)

Handguns would be allowed for individuals in certain jobs, or if an individual can show they are in imminent danger.

Anything beyond what you'd use for sport or hunting, or handguns for self protection would be limited to law enforcement. Unless they were in a position that would cause them to be in danger outside the line of duty (counterespionage, covert operations, maybe even some vice cops or something like that), law enforcement officers would have to store their weapons at their station/office while off duty.



Since I'm not dictator, I support banning all fully-automatic weapons, limiting sale of ammunition, and preventing those with a criminal record or who have been required to undergo psychiatric treatment from purchasing guns. All gun sales should require a check, including sales by private individuals. Businesses should be free to prohibit open or closed carry of weapons. Except for cases in which they may be in danger, law enforcement officers are subject to the same restrictions.

We should hold gun owners to a higher standard, and thus crimes committed using a gun should be punished more severely than the same crime without a gun.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Gun Control

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Aug 02, 2012 11:08 pm UTC

dshizzle wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:Ok, so, this is officially the 'devoid of intelligent perspective' Gun thread. Neat.


Would be kind of cool of you to contribute since you be a lurkin.

My point was that there are already numerous gun threads, and they've covered more than 'have you fired a gun? What do you think about guns?'. But sure, I'll bite;

1) Your experience with firearms.
Started shooting when I was maybe 10, .22 rifles. Throughout high school and until pretty recently, I shot skeet fairly regularly. I've taken handgun training courses as well, mostly 9mm, but was also able to fire a .45. I've never hunted.
2) Your opinion on Gun Control laws, national, state whatever.
I'm pro-registration, anti-most forms of gun restriction. People don't need howitzers, because no one is presently being threatened by mortar fire.
3) Your general political persuasion.
Libertarian-ish.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Trasvi
Posts: 310
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:11 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Trasvi » Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:10 am UTC

Prefix: Australian
1) Your experience with firearms.
I played Counterstrike for a while

2) Your opinion on Gun Control laws, national, state whatever.
Pro gun control. You shouldn't be able to own a gun that is easily concealable, or anything that can hold more than a certain number of rounds.
If you want to go hunting, buy a hunting rifle. If you want to do sports shooting, you can rent a gun off the shooting club (who keep the guns in a secured location).
IMO, there is no reason to own an instrument designed specifically to kill people, as the prevalence in society necessarily increases the availability of them to people who want to kill other people.
Gun control has been implemented very effectively in Australia, such that most petty criminals don't have access to guns

This question is obviously from a US perspective. Many countries around the world have lots of guns available (Canada, Switzerland are often touted), yet don't have the issues with gun violence that the US does. However, I think its pretty well proven that the US has a higher rate of violent crime/homicide than other western nations. Its a culture issue, that is compounded by access to guns.

3) Your general political persuasion.
Australian? Centre-right, though currently I'm voting left because the candidate for the right is so bad.

pizzazz
Posts: 487
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:44 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby pizzazz » Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:45 am UTC

1. Between the local gun club, Boy Scouts, and friends, have shot .22 rifles, .45 and .36 semiautomatic handguns, 12 and 20 gauge shotguns (skeet and trap), muzzle-loaders, .223 rifle.

2. As in all things, I prefer to err on the side of liberty in general, and punishing those individuals who take advantage improperly. So all law-abiding citizens have the right to carry concealed or open handguns, rifles, shotguns. So should lots of criminals, actually, except for repeat violent offenders. If background check exists, must be instant. No registration, permanent record, or random inspections, it's private information.

3. Libertarian. Some would probably describe me as right-libertarian or conservative-libertarian.

omgryebread wrote:Oh this should be fun.

Okay, so if I were dictator, guns would be almost entirely banned for the general population. Hunting or sport rifles and shotguns would be legal, but heavily restricted. To buy a gun, you'd have to have a psychological evaluation and training. Once you're certified and you go to buy the gun, you'd have a 6 month waiting period. Once you own it, it would have to stay unloaded when not in use. It must remain at home in a locked safe, unless you're transporting it for hunting, training, repair, sport, or another legitimate purpose. Sale of ammunition would be restricted and tracked. (Is it possible in some way to make bullets that could be identified once used? So that if used in a crime, a bullet could be matched against a database that shows ammunition sold, and the individual who bought it identified?)

Handguns would be allowed for individuals in certain jobs, or if an individual can show they are in imminent danger.

Anything beyond what you'd use for sport or hunting, or handguns for self protection would be limited to law enforcement. Unless they were in a position that would cause them to be in danger outside the line of duty (counterespionage, covert operations, maybe even some vice cops or something like that), law enforcement officers would have to store their weapons at their station/office while off duty.



What do you suppose would be the positive benefit of all of this? That's quite a lot of rules you're making and enforcing, obviously lots of time and expense, lots of things people can't do, and for what? You think this will reduce the number of guns owned and used by murderous thugs? Though I guess you do have plenty of precedent in the form of those awesome drug laws the US has.

On the other hand, you would fit right in with all those gentle, benevolent dictators of the last century (particularly from places like Uganda, Germany, the USSR, China, and Cambodia).

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Gun Control

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:58 am UTC

omgryebread wrote:Okay, so if I were dictator, guns would be almost entirely banned for the general population... stuff

I'm curious if you recognize how dangerous guns would be to the average criminal, and particularly, how valuable they would be to said criminal. All of your sentiments are basically what you find in cities in America with bad gun violence. Coincidence?

omgryebread wrote:Sale of ammunition would be restricted and tracked. (Is it possible in some way to make bullets that could be identified once used? So that if used in a crime, a bullet could be matched against a database that shows ammunition sold, and the individual who bought it identified?)

To the part in the parenthesis, possibly, but I don't think you realize how expensive forensics is. I also don't think you realize how many bullets there are, which segues into the next point:
You do realize making bullets is about as easy as making soup, right?
omgryebread wrote:We should hold gun owners to a higher standard, and thus crimes committed using a gun should be punished more severely than the same crime without a gun.

This is fine in theory, but in practice, I'm fairly confident gun crimes aren't typically committed by legal, FOID carrying individuals.
omgryebread wrote:and preventing those with a criminal record or who have been required to undergo psychiatric treatment from purchasing guns.

Again, this is fine in theory, but in practice, I can easily envision a scenario where an individual with a criminal record is absolutely entitled a gun for protection.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Trasvi
Posts: 310
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:11 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Trasvi » Fri Aug 03, 2012 5:17 am UTC

pizzazz wrote:
omgryebread wrote:Oh this should be fun.

Okay, so if I were dictator, guns would be almost entirely banned for the general population. Hunting or sport rifles and shotguns would be legal, but heavily restricted. To buy a gun, you'd have to have a psychological evaluation and training. Once you're certified and you go to buy the gun, you'd have a 6 month waiting period. Once you own it, it would have to stay unloaded when not in use. It must remain at home in a locked safe, unless you're transporting it for hunting, training, repair, sport, or another legitimate purpose. Sale of ammunition would be restricted and tracked. (Is it possible in some way to make bullets that could be identified once used? So that if used in a crime, a bullet could be matched against a database that shows ammunition sold, and the individual who bought it identified?)

Handguns would be allowed for individuals in certain jobs, or if an individual can show they are in imminent danger.

Anything beyond what you'd use for sport or hunting, or handguns for self protection would be limited to law enforcement. Unless they were in a position that would cause them to be in danger outside the line of duty (counterespionage, covert operations, maybe even some vice cops or something like that), law enforcement officers would have to store their weapons at their station/office while off duty.



What do you suppose would be the positive benefit of all of this? That's quite a lot of rules you're making and enforcing, obviously lots of time and expense, lots of things people can't do, and for what? You think this will reduce the number of guns owned and used by murderous thugs? Though I guess you do have plenty of precedent in the form of those awesome drug laws the US has.

On the other hand, you would fit right in with all those gentle, benevolent dictators of the last century (particularly from places like Uganda, Germany, the USSR, China, and Cambodia).


Australia does pretty much all of this, and most people would agree we're not a dictatorship.
No tracking of ammunition, but guns and ammunition must be stored in separate locked cabinets (afaik). There is mandatory training and a 28 day wait period to get your license. Self Defence is not a valid reason for owning a gun. To be part of a sport shooting club, there is a probation period and strict attendance requirements.
And most people in Australia are fairly happy about this :). It definitely has seen the number of guns owned and used by murderous thugs drop, and we haven't yet begun marching intellectuals out the fields to shoot them.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3715
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Gun Control

Postby EdgarJPublius » Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:00 am UTC

omgryebread wrote:Is it possible in some way to make bullets that could be identified once used? So that if used in a crime, a bullet could be matched against a database that shows ammunition sold, and the individual who bought it identified?


Several ideas of this nature have been advanced in the past. One recent version was to mandate firing-pins that would imprint the primer with the firearms serial number, so casings recovered from a crime scene could be tied to particular firearm.

The problems with this scheme are somewhat emblematic of the whole idea.

1. Manufacturing firearms with these special firing-pins would be expensive, and potentially reduces the reliability of the firearm. This means that even if manufacturers would agree in principle that serializing bullets and/or casings is a good idea, they would be unwilling to go along with any such scheme.
Trying to apply the serialization directly to the bullet or casing would be no different, expensive to implement and potential negative effects on bullet performance.

2. It would be easy to remove the special firing-pin in a firearm so equipped with a 'blank' or normal, or modify it to remove the serialization. You see the same with serialized firearms used in crimes with the serial-numbers removed or covered over.

3. The markings would be extremely difficult to spot and identify. In fact, given the forces and stresses that accompany firing, it's likely that the marking wouldn't be identifiable at all. And again, this applies doubly to serializing the actual bullet, since they are subject to the same conditions, and then typically deform further upon contact with the target, likely damaging erasing any such markings.

4. Reloading ammunition (restoring spent casings with a new primer, new power and a new bullet so it can be fired again, often many times for the same casing) is inexpensive, not very difficult, and extremely popular (reloaded ammunition can be much less expensive than factory-new ammunition, especially if you reload your own ammunition, but also there are people and companies that reload as a business) And casting your own bullets is only mildly more challenging. A serialized case could be recycled many times after the original purchaser uses it, and a serialized bullet could be easily replaced with a non-serialized bullet, possibly a home-cast one if non-serialized bullets are not legal.
Last edited by EdgarJPublius on Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:13 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

Hemmers
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 3:50 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Hemmers » Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:46 am UTC

To expand on what Edgar has just said, all his points are very valid.

- Adding microstamping for cartridges increases costs.

- A firing pin is an extremely simple component and trivial to make with regular workshop equipment, so easy for criminals to change out (or they could just file the end very slightly).

- It has been shown in tests that depending on cartridge and firearm, the tip of the pin can wear enough to render the stamp illegible in as little as 5000 rounds. Since these markings are what they're called - micro - you need specialist microscopes to read and identify the stamps - how am I as a gun owner supposed to know if that stamp if legible or whether I need a new pin - is every gunsmith supposed to go and buy expensive microscopy equipment as well as the means to engrave pins at such a scale? Get real.

- Also, I shoot more than 5000 rounds a year. Am I going to go and pay good money for a new firing pin every 6 months? I think not. But who'sgoing to check? Are you going to do spot checks on x-million gun owners every year? Who's going to pay for that? Bearing in mind your average crim will change out the pin for a blank one anyway.
It's simply not enforceable and won't help cut crime or trace criminals.

- The bullet typically deforms on impact, whether it hits concrete, bone or earth so it's highly improbable that even if you implemented microstamping for bullets, that you would ever actually recover a bullet with a legible stamp (and I'm not sure how you would even do that. It would probably alter the flight dynamics and make guns very inaccurate, in which case you might as well just ban target shooting entirely, because what's the point if you're going to cripple the firearms? Also you would be rendering hunting dangerous and making it difficult for hunters to obtain a clean and humane shot). In terms of factory-serialised rounds that can be traced to the buyer, the same deformation issue applies, and of course, although it's a bit more invovled than reloading casings with factory made bullets, primers and powder, some people do cast their own. It wouldn't be beyond the scope of a city's criminals to end up with someone casting illicit bullets. If people can smuggle guns or drugs into the country (which in pretty much every country they can if they try hard enough) then they can also smuggle in untraceable ammunition.

And the biggest one that microstamping followers don't like answering is "What if the criminal takes their casings with them?"
For pistols or any gun where there might be a spray and pray routine, there's probably going to be a lot of casings flying about (although in drive-bys they should be contained within the car, not left at the scene), but rifles tend to involve a few deliberate shots, so certainly microstamping the casings would be fairly pointless as they wouldn't be left at the scene as evidence.

Also, home reloading. And for shooters who don't homeload and just use factory ammo (and therefore probably throw in a bucket at the range to be sent for scrap), what's to stop someone at a club collecting a few casings out the bucket from someone else's gun and scattering them at a crime scene. How do you intend to eliminate false positives?

Microstamped casings are pretty much inadmissible as court evidence. They don't even prove that gun was at the scene of a crime, although I guess in the unusual case you actually got a legible one, they might give you a lead, but even then it's probably just to a crime report filed by a gun owner who's been burgled and had their gun stolen.

Hemmers
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 3:50 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Hemmers » Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:42 am UTC

Trasvi wrote:
pizzazz wrote:
omgryebread wrote:Australia does pretty much all of this, and most people would agree we're not a dictatorship.
No tracking of ammunition, but guns and ammunition must be stored in separate locked cabinets (afaik). There is mandatory training and a 28 day wait period to get your license. Self Defence is not a valid reason for owning a gun. To be part of a sport shooting club, there is a probation period and strict attendance requirements.
And most people in Australia are fairly happy about this :). It definitely has seen the number of guns owned and used by murderous thugs drop, and we haven't yet begun marching intellectuals out the fields to shoot them.


Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.

Some numbers to back your argument please?
The UK banned pistols in the UK in 1997. Over the next decade crime involving handguns more than doubled.

The ban had one effect and one effect only, which was to close a bunch of clubs and run a bunch of gunsmiths out of business.

The thing everyone needs to remember is guns aren't complicated.

If you can find your way around a lathe, you can make a gun.

Therefore yes, you need some basic level of protection to ensure a psychopath can't walk into a shop, buy a gun and then walk into a bank or school and start shooting.
Cool off periods are also potentially useful to offset crimes of passion in the heat of the moment.

However, there is a limit at which additional laws and controls and licensing become nothing more than a bureaucratic exercise. They don't actually serve to make the public any safer.
The UK has already passed this point. Gun crime went up after 1997 because criminals by and large didn't use legally owned guns anyway - the control were strict enough that they were buying from black market sources anyway, either smuggled in or illicitly manufactured by unlicensed smiths. Clubs folded, businesses went under, and there was no impact on criminals whatsoever. The legislation made no attempt to address criminal usage whatsoever - pre-ban it was illegal to have a pistol without a licence. Post-ban it was just illegal to have a pistol at all. Same difference.


You will never stop criminals having guns. It's like trying to stop them having knives - you can't control bits of random material being given a sharpened edge - if criminals can improvise weapons in prison where they're supposedly under tight control, then they can damn well manage outside! Are we going to ban private ownershipn of lathes and workshop tools!?!?

That basic statement of fact needs to be factored into any gun law. You won't stop determined criminals obtaining or manufacturing firearms. Therefore your laws are basically implementing the base restrictions and protecting the public from themselves. Everything else is down to enforcement, because criminals don't follow laws that get in their way. And firearms law tends to be near the top of the lists of laws that get in their way. Making an illegal thing more illegal doesn't stop people doing it. A lesson our Labour Government never managed to learn over the 3-4000 pieces of legislation they introduced during their tenure.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Gun Control

Postby Azrael » Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:20 pm UTC

Already we're demonstrating that this can't be discussed maturely? Color me unimpressed.

Also, I'm going to start (continue, actually) deleting anything even remotely resembling "So I had a friend with this sweet gun and he..." stories.

dshizzle
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:45 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby dshizzle » Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:38 pm UTC

You guys make some very interesting points. Interesting to note that even on xkcd people are prone to confuse correlation with causality. This is an error that is made on both sides of the argument about gun control commonly. I love mathematics, but I find that statistics about trends in violence and attempting to link them to gun laws can often be misleading. I do not mean to say that gun laws do not effect crime, only that there are so many other important factors that the picture is not as clear as people often paint it. I prefer to stick to arguments which do not depend on them for this reason.

The cogent reasons against gun control in my opinion, can be broken into three arguments really..

- Protecting political freedoms. Freedom is protected not by a document, or a system of government, but by the citizens willingness to fight, both politically and militantly for their freedoms. Although there are certainly a great many countries who currently have great political freedoms and restricted gun laws, it is worth noting that the first action of any authoritarian regime, especially genocidal ones is to disarm the people.

- Self Defense. In the United States the average police response time is four minutes, the time to draw and fire a handgun is .5 seconds.
Criminals do not obey laws, and acquire firearms by stealing them or manufacturing their own. Gun laws only really effect people that follow the law, this leads to an unarmed citizenry preyed upon by armed thugs. Although there are some non-lethal alternatives such as pepper spray and tasers, none have anything near the efficacy of stopping an attack as a firearm.

- Hunting and Sport. Many people love to shoot and hunt, myself included, while bow hunting is fun as well it has its limitations.

Now in my experience most of the people who would like to see stricter gun control have extremely limited experience with firearms themselves, in a way this could be taken as a hurr durr kind of point, since of course someone that shoots every day probably isn't going to be in favor of gun laws, but I think it tends to show in the inept way gun laws are written. In Maryland for instance I can buy a .45-70 lever gun without the state checking if I've been admitted to the hospital for mental disorders, but not a .223 AR. Only an idiot would tell you that .45-70 isn't as dangerous, if not more so than the AR, but because its not black and scary looking, its fine with the state.
I love my freedoms, but there are some parts of American gun law which do need to change, we need to stop banning "scary weapons." and start doing the hard work of creating a national mental health database, with penalties for failing to report a person admitted to a hospital or being treated for serious disorder. As is the case with most things, the problem isn't the tool, its the operator, at least as far as I can tell.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. - Feynman

User avatar
K-R
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:42 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Gun Control

Postby K-R » Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:36 pm UTC

Trasvi wrote:Australia does pretty much all of this, and most people would agree we're not a dictatorship.
No tracking of ammunition, but guns and ammunition must be stored in separate locked cabinets (afaik). There is mandatory training and a 28 day wait period to get your license. Self Defence is not a valid reason for owning a gun. To be part of a sport shooting club, there is a probation period and strict attendance requirements.
And most people in Australia are fairly happy about this :). It definitely has seen the number of guns owned and used by murderous thugs drop, and we haven't yet begun marching intellectuals out the fields to shoot them.

And the news is constantly full of stories about the elderly being assaulted in their homes, and burglars wandering into people's houses in broad daylight, taking what they want, and leaving. Coincidence?

dshizzle
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:45 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby dshizzle » Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:52 pm UTC

And the news is constantly full of stories about the elderly being assaulted in their homes, and burglars wandering into people's houses in broad daylight, taking what they want, and leaving. Coincidence?


Too be fair our news is currently full of junk about how terrible guns are, not saying that there isn't a crime issue in Australia, I really don't know. But the news just tends to be a terrible source of information that is nothing more than anecdotal crap.

Lol and now I see you're from Australia, I yield to your experience.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. - Feynman

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Gun Control

Postby Azrael » Fri Aug 03, 2012 2:36 pm UTC

koberulz wrote:And the news is constantly full of stories about the elderly being assaulted in their homes, and burglars wandering into people's houses in broad daylight, taking what they want, and leaving. Coincidence?

Pretend you're in SB for a moment, and run a few scenarios:

Burglary rates (not incidents, but per capita) for Australia, the UK, the US and Canada. It would be useful to also list the percent of the population living in urban (pick a density threshold) vs rural, because overall density is pretty damn useless for three of the four countries.

This sort of comparison has been done before, and I vaguely recall that you're not going to end up with a solid standing supporting your coincidence.

dshizzle
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:45 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby dshizzle » Fri Aug 03, 2012 2:55 pm UTC

This sort of comparison has been done before, and I vaguely recall that you're not going to end up with a solid standing supporting your coincidence.


While you are correct that U.S. violent crime rates are higher per capita, I think the business of attempting to compare different countries can be really misleading. There's simply too much complexity in the system to blame it on a single factor. The same goes for the pro-gun people who say well Australian and British violent crime rates have risen since gun laws were passed, its simply too complex of a system to have any certainty that correlation implies causation.

Allow me to rephrase that for clarity, that there crime rates has risen is a fact, that its mainly due to gun legislation is not.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. - Feynman

Puppyclaws
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:08 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Puppyclaws » Fri Aug 03, 2012 2:59 pm UTC

koberulz wrote:And the news is constantly full of stories about the elderly being assaulted in their homes, and burglars wandering into people's houses in broad daylight, taking what they want, and leaving. Coincidence?


In the United States, as violent crime has decreased, reporting on violent crime has increased. Coincidence? (hint: yes)

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Gun Control

Postby Azrael » Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:07 pm UTC

dshizzle wrote:...There's simply too much complexity in the system to blame it on a single factor... Allow me to rephrase that for clarity, that [Australia's] crime rates has risen is a fact, that its mainly due to gun legislation is not.

Both of those are precisely the points I was making. I was just attempting to do it with data (inconclusive data, specifically), rather than assertions.

Puppyclaws wrote:In the United States, as violent crime has decreased, reporting on violent crime has increased. Coincidence? (hint: yes)

Unless I completely misunderstand your point, no, that is not a coincidence. The two actually are (well, can be) related. As violent crime rates decrease, each incident becomes more noteworthy, and thus more reportable. I think your hint is mislabeled?

dshizzle
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:45 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby dshizzle » Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:20 pm UTC

Both of those are precisely the points I was making. I was just attempting to do it with data (inconclusive data, specifically), rather than assertions.


Yeah it seems nearly impossible to get a decent set of data too look at. I've spent the past thirty minutes trying to figure out whats going on, and have given up. No consistency in reporting, and so much bias and cherrypicking being introduced from both sides it seems like there isn't a single person that writes,studies or thinks about gun control that isn't slanted in one way or another.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. - Feynman

Puppyclaws
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:08 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Puppyclaws » Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:26 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
Puppyclaws wrote:In the United States, as violent crime has decreased, reporting on violent crime has increased. Coincidence? (hint: yes)

Unless I completely misunderstand your point, no, that is not a coincidence. The two actually are (well, can be) related. As violent crime rates decrease, each incident becomes more noteworthy, and thus more reportable. I think your hint is mislabeled?


No; the two facts are unrelated. Violent crime has received increasing press because it increases readership/viewership and that is increasingly the drive behind what is deemed newsworthy. The increased reporting has also been simultaneous (and here I would argue there is a relationship) with an increase in how much violent crime people think there is. If it were simply that crime was now noteworthy because it is uncommon, you would expect people to think violent crime was decreasing, rather than increasing.

User avatar
K-R
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:42 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Gun Control

Postby K-R » Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:31 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:Burglary rates (not incidents, but per capita) for Australia, the UK, the US and Canada. It would be useful to also list the percent of the population living in urban (pick a density threshold) vs rural, because overall density is pretty damn useless for three of the four countries.

The latter is an interesting point, because I recall from a gun control debate on another forum that population density correlates with violent crime far more than anything else (across the US, IIRC).

However, the claim 'we introduced/have gun control, and there are no gun crimes!' misses the point. Of course there are fewer gun crimes. There are fewer guns. What people tend to ignore is the rates of other violent crime. The ones guns could protect you from, if you had them.

I find it bloody hard to believe that anyone in the US, particularly in a gun-heavy state, would think it a good idea to wander into people's houses in broad daylight and in full knowledge that the house is occupied, in an attempt to rob it.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Aug 03, 2012 5:37 pm UTC

dshizzle wrote:
Both of those are precisely the points I was making. I was just attempting to do it with data (inconclusive data, specifically), rather than assertions.


Yeah it seems nearly impossible to get a decent set of data too look at. I've spent the past thirty minutes trying to figure out whats going on, and have given up. No consistency in reporting, and so much bias and cherrypicking being introduced from both sides it seems like there isn't a single person that writes,studies or thinks about gun control that isn't slanted in one way or another.

'
Yup. To hear gun control advocates spin it, banning guns "obviously" reduces crime. On the other hand, gun control advocates would have you believe that guns everywhere results in curing most crime ills. However, when you try to crunch the stats...the only solid conclusion is that firearm ownership is a lot less important than other metrics. Population density correlating with crime? Easy. I can demonstrate the hell out of that. With a bit more effort, I can get pretty decent support for # of police affecting crime, news coverage encouraging copycat crimes of notable events, or population demographics affecting crime rates(retirees don't do a lot of breaking and entering). And of course, it's patently obvious that culture is a massive factor in which crimes are popular and which crimes get reported.

So, it probably has an effect, but a sufficiently small one that it just gets lost in the noise of everything else.


On the topic of saving bullets...maryland does that. Every firearm sold, the fire a bullet through it, and save it for forsenics. IIRC, this program has the dubious distinction of being one of the most expensive programs to never catch a single criminal. Why? Well, all guns coming off a given production line are gonna have extremely similar ballistics. Also, ballistic signatures change over the life of a firearm. Part changes entirely reset them. So, it's basically useless outside of a lab. Normal use entirely invalidates the whole thing.

On the topic of cases...one element nobody's mentioned yet is that cases are often not left at the crime scene for a more obvious reason...they frequently have at least partial prints of whoever loaded the gun(usually the owner). And, of course, revolvers and single shot weapons don't eject the empties. So, it only has even a chance to work on novice criminals, using specific types of firearms, who haven't fired their guns much, and who bought the guns themselves and made no effort to avoid detection. And even there, there's a huge luck element. I submit that this kind of criminal is the kind most likely to get caught through existing channels, and it's not worth the side effects of increased expense, decreased reliability, and so on.

And, of course...homemade firearms are not a technically hard thing. So, certain levels of gun control are practically impossible to obtain. Prohibition serves as a good example here...alcohol is also sufficiently easy to make that you can't really prevent a motivated person from getting it. So, really, we can't ever entirely deny criminals access to firearms.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Gun Control

Postby Azrael » Fri Aug 03, 2012 5:41 pm UTC

koberulz wrote:I find it bloody hard to believe that anyone in the US, particularly in a gun-heavy state, would think it a good idea to wander into people's houses in broad daylight and in full knowledge that the house is occupied, in an attempt to rob it.

And this is the sort of basic common sense assumption that leads to "having guns prevents crime" mentality. But does the data support it? I don't really think it does. Perhaps I need to see if I can run statistics of fairly comparable municipalities in (for example) Massachusetts vs. Nevada. But, for the most part, I doubt it's a driving factor.

Oh, hey look, a ninja saying the same thing.

Puppyclaws wrote:Violent crime has received increasing press because it increases readership/viewership and that is increasingly the drive behind what is deemed newsworthy. The increased reporting has also been simultaneous (and here I would argue there is a relationship) with an increase in how much violent crime people think there is.

I actually agree completely with those two points. But even as that entertainment feedback loop amplifies itself, desensitization is a real phenomena -- people stop thinking things are newsworthy if they happen frequently.

It may be a much longer time scale for desensitization to be a factor, though. Take car theft. Cars used to be stolen much more frequently (easily shown by data) to the point where (anecdotal) people were used to it happening.

thepauly
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 2:57 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby thepauly » Fri Aug 03, 2012 5:47 pm UTC

I am interested to know the opinions on Gun Control of the forum. Please include the following.

1) Your experience with firearms.
2) Your opinion on Gun Control laws, national, state whatever.
3) Your general political persuasion.


1.) Firearms user since youth. Commissioned officer in US Army, 15 years military experience.
2.) Gun control laws should be a state/local issue, not federal. Personally, I would prefer a limit on magazine size, because there is no reason, even for self-defense, to carry 15, 20, or 30 rounds in a clip. If you know of even one verifiable instance that a private citizen got into a protracted gun battle with a criminal (or a tyrant, for that matter) I'd really love to hear it. I also think firearms safety training should be mandatory before purchasing a gun, background checks and waiting period, etc., etc.
3.) Lifelong Republican, center-right in my beliefs.

The cogent reasons against gun control in my opinion, can be broken into three arguments really..

- Protecting political freedoms. Freedom is protected not by a document, or a system of government, but by the citizens willingness to fight, both politically and militantly for their freedoms. Although there are certainly a great many countries who currently have great political freedoms and restricted gun laws, it is worth noting that the first action of any authoritarian regime, especially genocidal ones is to disarm the people.

- Self Defense. In the United States the average police response time is four minutes, the time to draw and fire a handgun is .5 seconds.
Criminals do not obey laws, and acquire firearms by stealing them or manufacturing their own. Gun laws only really effect people that follow the law, this leads to an unarmed citizenry preyed upon by armed thugs. Although there are some non-lethal alternatives such as pepper spray and tasers, none have anything near the efficacy of stopping an attack as a firearm.

- Hunting and Sport. Many people love to shoot and hunt, myself included, while bow hunting is fun as well it has its limitations.


You can't seriously believe these are cogent arguments.

-How is it noteworthy that genocidal regimes tend to disarm people? You know genocidal regimes also frequently have driving speed limits and anti-littering laws? So should we drop all speed limits just because Hitler wanted safe, tidy roads? As far as using firearms to "protect" freedoms, guns are not how we do so in a civilized country. If you don't believe it, just look at Ruby Ridge or Waco, Texas to see how well shooting one's way to freedom works out.

-While the average time for police arrival may be longer than the time it takes to draw and fire a gun (at a shooting range), the likelihood that police would show up to a crime is MUCH higher than the likelihood that a gun-carrying private citizen would actually draw and fire. In the Tacoma, Wash. mall about 5 or so years ago, someone started shooting with either an SKS or AK rifle. (I think it was an SKS). Three people were armed and had an opportunity to shoot. None of them did. One person who was carrying actually confronted the shooter verbally, and was shot for his trouble. The reason he didn't shoot? "I could only see his head, I would have had to kill him." Also, quick draw is all well and good at the range, but criminals don't actually wear a black hat and say "Draw!". They'll generally have the drop on their victim, so they can shoot much more quickly than someone with a holstered weapon.
You say gun-control laws lead to an unarmed citizenry at the mercy of thugs. How many people do you think actually carry firearms on a regular basis? Do you carry? I have a concealed pistol license, and I don't; the vast majority of people don't. So essentially, societal factors have already disarmed the populace, but it's still ridiculously easy to get a gun if you feel like shooting up a theater full of children.
Which brings us to the most recent case-in-point: the Colo. theater shooter. He was wearing head to toe body armor. How would a couple of armed citizens helped out there?

-Obviously, hunting is a valid reason for firearm ownership. I hunt, and there are situations where a pistol grip, semi-automatic rifle (AKA assault rifle) would be a very effective choice for a hunting rifle, without any need for more than 6 or so rounds in the magazine. Target shooting is also a good reason for ownership. One thing that a lot of "shooters" enjoy, though, is taking high-capacity firearms out to the woods to burn ammunition. I really don't call that responsible or valid.

dshizzle
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:45 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby dshizzle » Fri Aug 03, 2012 6:20 pm UTC

-How is it noteworthy that genocidal regimes tend to disarm people?


Unlike the littering and speed limit laws disarming a populace makes them incapable of fighting back in any meaningful way.

As far as using firearms to "protect" freedoms, guns are not how we do so in a civilized country.


Someone has not heard of the revolutionary war? The civil war? Nazi occupation of germany? Rwanda? I am seriously confused by this perspective.

-While the average time for police arrival may be longer than the time it takes to draw and fire a gun (at a shooting range), the likelihood that police would show up to a crime is MUCH higher than the likelihood that a gun-carrying private citizen would actually draw and fire. In the Tacoma, Wash. mall about 5 or so years ago, someone started shooting with either an SKS or AK rifle. (I think it was an SKS). Three people were armed and had an opportunity to shoot. None of them did. One person who was carrying actually confronted the shooter verbally, and was shot for his trouble. The reason he didn't shoot? "I could only see his head, I would have had to kill him." Also, quick draw is all well and good at the range, but criminals don't actually wear a black hat and say "Draw!". They'll generally have the drop on their victim, so they can shoot much more quickly than someone with a holstered weapon.
You say gun-control laws lead to an unarmed citizenry at the mercy of thugs. How many people do you think actually carry firearms on a regular basis? Do you carry? I have a concealed pistol license, and I don't; the vast majority of people don't. So essentially, societal factors have already disarmed the populace, but it's still ridiculously easy to get a gun if you feel like shooting up a theater full of children.
Which brings us to the most recent case-in-point: the Colo. theater shooter. He was wearing head to toe body armor. How would a couple of armed citizens helped out there?


I'm sure that you are being honest with your views, but it really seems like you've allowed your perspective to be dictated by a few isolated events rather than looking at the whole data set. I would encourage you to do more research into the effectiveness of concealed carry, at least on muggings, carjackings etc. Your absolutely correct that an aggressor has the advantage on someones who's using the weapon defensively, does this make the defense moot? No.
Your point about spree shooters is good, they tend to have a plan and are far better armed than anyone ccwing, and I don't know that there is a single case where a person with a concealed weapon stopped one. That said I cannot speak for the actions of other men, or their intentions, but I would gladly trade my life for a few others. Even if my little pistol couldn't stop the big bad crazy it might be enough to let some other people see their families, that makes it worth it in my eyes.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. - Feynman

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Gun Control

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Aug 03, 2012 6:27 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:And this is the sort of basic common sense assumption that leads to "having guns prevents crime" mentality. But does the data support it? I don't really think it does. Perhaps I need to see if I can run statistics of fairly comparable municipalities in (for example) Massachusetts vs. Nevada. But, for the most part, I doubt it's a driving factor.

I'm fairly certain gun crimes in cities in Texas are rather low compared to, say, gun crimes in Chicago.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests