Gun Control

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

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Gun Control

Postby jules.LT » Thu Mar 28, 2013 4:00 pm UTC

Good one.
Source?
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ormurinn » Thu Mar 28, 2013 4:15 pm UTC

I'd be willing to bet that the guns used in self-defense in the majority of cases are qualitatively different to the ones used in murders. Shotguns for instance are used a lot in home defense in rural England (which is technically illegal due to our inhumane laws regarding self defense, but rarely punished as harshly as it could be because of the enormous public outcry whenever the judicial system tries to victimise the defender). Seems to me you need a way to restrict cheap pistols, but make shotguns, rifles, and the preferred handguns of CCW-permit holders more available.

Unfortunately, cheap pistols are, well, cheap and abundant. Any way to restrict them?

NB. The preponderance of shotguns used in self defense in the U.K may well be due to lesser restrictions on shotguns as opposed to other firearms in the U.K. Are shotguns or other longarms used more in self defense in the U.S also?
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

juststrange
Posts: 296
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:57 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby juststrange » Thu Mar 28, 2013 4:34 pm UTC

lynx wrote:Haven't been following this thread. But as food for thought:
For every time a gun in the home is used in a self-defense homicide, a gun will be used in 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides and 37 suicides.


I believe it, sure. Every month the NRA magazine ("America's First Freedom"... as much as I like guns the views expressed in that magazine are.. different) has a column dedicated to people who have protected themselves from aggressors using thier gun. Very rarely do the stories published involve the aggressor being killed, I'd say 10%, with the rest being an even mix of 1) I pulled my gun and they took off running or 2) I pulled my gun, fired a shot and hit him and he hobbled away. Home defense homicides are a poor indicator of how often/effectively firearms are used for home defense. And not to be callous, but suicide is a mental health issue, one made more tragic by access to such an effective means of ending your life.

I'm really interested to see how MD's new gun control bill rolling affects me. I own 100% legal home built firearms that would qualify as "copy-cat" weapons. They look like scary guns, and if this thing passes how it is, I'd be required to register them. However they do not have serial numbers, and nobody at the gov't has been able to tell me how they plan to deal with it.

I must say, I'm glad the AWB was dropped from this latest federal manuver - it was a bad deal the first time, and it'd be a bad thing if it came back. Banning weapons that look scary is foolish.

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Gun Control

Postby jules.LT » Thu Mar 28, 2013 4:39 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:Are shotguns or other longarms used more in self defense in the U.S also?
I wouldn't believe so. Small arms are cheaper and more convenient, so they are what people buy for self-defence.
The shotguns in the UK would mostly be bought for hunting, they're only used for defence because they're there.
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

juststrange
Posts: 296
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:57 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby juststrange » Thu Mar 28, 2013 4:54 pm UTC

jules.LT wrote:
Ormurinn wrote:Are shotguns or other longarms used more in self defense in the U.S also?
I wouldn't believe so. Small arms are cheaper and more convenient, so they are what people buy for self-defence.
The shotguns in the UK would mostly be bought for hunting, they're only used for defence because they're there.


An entry level, new, 12 gauge shotgun can be had for 300 dollars (over under). A Ruger 10-22 rifle for maybe $350-400. Even the cheapest semiautomatic handguns I've seen are that and then some, 500-700 dollars for the more popular models that would be decent for self defense (Beretta 92, Low cost 1911 varieties).

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 » Thu Mar 28, 2013 4:54 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:Seems to me you need a way to restrict cheap pistols, but make shotguns, rifles, and the preferred handguns of CCW-permit holders more available.

Unfortunately, cheap pistols are, well, cheap and abundant. Any way to restrict them?

Via ammunition restrictions. While there are people who can and will load their own ammo (and that rate would increase), a very strict regulation of ammunition also addresses the 'steal/smuggle it once, use it many times' sort of problems.

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Gun Control

Postby jules.LT » Thu Mar 28, 2013 4:57 pm UTC

juststrange wrote:An entry level, new, 12 gauge shotgun can be had for 300 dollars (over under). A Ruger 10-22 rifle for maybe $350-400. Even the cheapest semiautomatic handguns I've seen are that and then some, 500-700 dollars for the more popular models that would be decent for self defense (Beretta 92, Low cost 1911 varieties).
Is that so? I thought I had read several times in this thread that handguns were "cheap"?
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

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 » Thu Mar 28, 2013 5:11 pm UTC

jules.LT wrote:
juststrange wrote:An entry level, new, 12 gauge shotgun can be had for 300 dollars (over under). A Ruger 10-22 rifle for maybe $350-400. Even the cheapest semiautomatic handguns I've seen are that and then some, 500-700 dollars for the more popular models that would be decent for self defense (Beretta 92, Low cost 1911 varieties).
Is that so? I thought I had read several times in this thread that handguns were "cheap"?

Using Cabela's as a yard stick (they're one of the largest retails of outdoorsy stuff), they have both semi-automatic pistols and pump action shotguns starting just over $200.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3726
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Gun Control

Postby EdgarJPublius » Thu Mar 28, 2013 5:44 pm UTC

lynx wrote:Haven't been following this thread. But as food for thought:
For every time a gun in the home is used in a self-defense homicide, a gun will be used in 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides and 37 suicides.


These statistics seem wildly out of proportion to reality. For example, suicides typically outnumber homicides at about 2:1, not ~6:1 as indicated here Also, accidents are a tiny proportion of firearm related deaths, they occur with a frequency of about 1 per every 18 homicides. CDC
There are no good self-defense homicide statistics due to reporting problems and issues of defining exactly what constitutes a 'self defense homicide' although studies show that defensive gun uses rarely result in homicide and easily outnumber all firearm related deaths combined.

juststrange wrote:
jules.LT wrote:
Ormurinn wrote:Are shotguns or other longarms used more in self defense in the U.S also?
I wouldn't believe so. Small arms are cheaper and more convenient, so they are what people buy for self-defence.
The shotguns in the UK would mostly be bought for hunting, they're only used for defence because they're there.


An entry level, new, 12 gauge shotgun can be had for 300 dollars (over under). A Ruger 10-22 rifle for maybe $350-400. Even the cheapest semiautomatic handguns I've seen are that and then some, 500-700 dollars for the more popular models that would be decent for self defense (Beretta 92, Low cost 1911 varieties).


$500-$700 is actually a bit on the expensive side for a handgun, even for semi-automatics. A lot of 'name brand' defensive handguns go for about $450 or less new (non-panic prices, who knows what these things are going for right now), but once you start getting into older models and less well known brands, you can easily pick up a quality handgun new for ~$300.

But that doesn't even touch on the really cheap stuff, like the Ring of Fire companies (currently under the umbrella of Jimenez Arms) or High Point which typically MSRP below $200, and some models even below $100. You don't hear a lot about these pistols, and most people in the 'gun community' barely even consider them firearms (although High Point is slowly being accepted as a good 'bargain brand'), but their low price point makes them very popular defensive firearms for people who aren't otherwise interested in firearms or who can't afford more expensive firearms.
In this price range you also get a lot of revolvers of various quality, mostly copies of the S&W J-frame (the archetypical 'snub-nose' revolver) which are also quite popular.
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

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ormurinn » Thu Mar 28, 2013 5:50 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
Ormurinn wrote:Seems to me you need a way to restrict cheap pistols, but make shotguns, rifles, and the preferred handguns of CCW-permit holders more available.

Unfortunately, cheap pistols are, well, cheap and abundant. Any way to restrict them?

Via ammunition restrictions. While there are people who can and will load their own ammo (and that rate would increase), a very strict regulation of ammunition also addresses the 'steal/smuggle it once, use it many times' sort of problems.


Hmm... I wonder if actuarial science could come into this. I'd be willing to bet some calibres are used in crimes more than others, so selective restrictions may be possible.

".45 ACP, go right ahead! You'll need to apply to the police dept for a certificate for those 9mm parabellums though..."

Of course, that'd just shift what calibres are used in crime, but theres likely a pre-existing stock of black-market guns, so thered' be a lot of inelasticity.

"Do your bit to end gun violence, shoot 10mm!"

Tyndmyr, you seem to be involved in the CCW subculture, are there preferred calibers for CCW that differ from those used in most shootings?

I doubt the people with the skill, inclination and capacity to handload are those committing gun crimes...
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
Brace
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:40 am UTC
Location: Denver, Co
Contact:

Re: Gun Control

Postby Brace » Thu Mar 28, 2013 6:10 pm UTC

Most gun crimes are committed using .22lr or .25 ACP. Regulating .22lr would be a bit absurd, given its many other uses. .25 ACP is a junk caliber which I doubt many people would miss.

I carry a Kel-Tec P-11 which cost $245 + tax out the door, for reference on the cheap handgun thing. Surplus Tokarevs are cheap, but poor carry weapons. Surplus Makarov caliber pistols used to be cheap, and some still are, and many can be carried reasonably. There are lots of options in the $200-300 range, although many have been priced out of that range by the panic. Even what used to be a $210 derringer is going for $270 now. I am wary of essentially pricing the poor out of self-defense for a large number of reasons. It disadvantages those most at risk of violence and is also quite overtly classist (apparently being poor and making purchasing decisions correspondingly is a sign of criminality now).

A Phoenix Arms HP-22A (which is a .22lr pistol, as the name implies) can be had for $130-140 even post panic. There is an equivalent model chambered for .25acp also. This is the type of handgun "saturday night special" normally refers to.
"The future is the only kind of property that the masters willingly concede to the slaves" - Albert Camus

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3726
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Gun Control

Postby EdgarJPublius » Thu Mar 28, 2013 6:44 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:Tyndmyr, you seem to be involved in the CCW subculture, are there preferred calibers for CCW that differ from those used in most shootings?


Typically, the CCW crowd considers 9mm or .380ACP to be the 'least powerful' calibers that are acceptable for defensive use, with a sizable faction that says any caliber that doesn't start with a '4' (in other words, .40S&W, .45ACP and .44Magnum) is for babies (actual ballistic data suggests that a modern hollowpoint 9mm should be comparably lethal to a .45ACP hollowpoint).

Criminals overwhelming prefer* choose guns in the range of about .38SPC/9mm or smaller, with a strong tendency towards generic .38 revolvers and the 'Ring of Fire', likely due to their low cost and high availability (of the firearms specifically, not necessarily the ammo).

This has been discussed previously in the thread and it's been mentioned that preferentially banning or restricting these firearms is a tricky proposition as it would tend to unequally effect lower-income groups who also prefer these firearms for self-defense.


I doubt the people with the skill, inclination and capacity to handload are those committing gun crimes...


You might be surprised. It's not uncommon for police to recover crime-guns with handloaded ammunition, though I don't know exactly how common it is and due to the nature of recovery and reporting, it's not always clear if the handloads in a criminal's firearm were purchased from a commercial or black market handloader, self-loaded, or just happened to be the rounds in the gun when it was stolen. More and better research is needed. If that last is the most common situation, then it would indicate that any sort of ammo restrictions would be largely pointless, as criminals would just continue stealing loaded guns and let law abiding gun owners bear the brunt of the regulation as usual.

*One study I am aware of and have posted here previously discusses the issue including a survey of actual criminals who largely expressed a strong preference for the largest handgun calibers, but actual rates of recovered firearms indicate a strong tendency to acquire these cheap and widely available pistols instead. 9mm is actually a fairly recent arrival on the scene, since about the mid/late 90s I believe, earlier studies show that criminals used .25 and related 'saturday night special' calibers before this. It's likely that the change came about as a result of increasing regulation and restriction on 'saturday night specials' and the increasing popularity of 9mm as a recreational and defensive caliber. .38spc is still the overwhemlingly most popular criminal handgun caliber though, and will likely remain so as long as there are squintillions of old 'S&W' .38s floating around
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

juststrange
Posts: 296
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:57 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby juststrange » Thu Mar 28, 2013 6:54 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
Ormurinn wrote:Seems to me you need a way to restrict cheap pistols, but make shotguns, rifles, and the preferred handguns of CCW-permit holders more available.

Unfortunately, cheap pistols are, well, cheap and abundant. Any way to restrict them?

Via ammunition restrictions. While there are people who can and will load their own ammo (and that rate would increase), a very strict regulation of ammunition also addresses the 'steal/smuggle it once, use it many times' sort of problems.



Not an original plan. I think the first time I heard this, Chris Rock said it:

Chris Rock wrote:“You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control. Men, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders.
Yeah! Every time somebody get shot we’d say, ‘Damn, he must have done something ... Shit, he’s got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass.’
And people would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost five thousand dollars. ‘Man I would blow your fucking head off…if I could afford it.’ ‘I’m gonna get me another job, I’m going to start saving some money, and you’re a dead man. You’d better hope I can’t get no bullets on layaway.’
So even if you get shot by a stray bullet, you wouldn't have to go to no doctor to get it taken out. Whoever shot you would take their bullet back, like "I believe you got my property.”

Bsob
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:44 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Bsob » Thu Mar 28, 2013 7:35 pm UTC

"bullet control" is silly.

I can blow through more ammo one day at a range than it would take to rob 20 liquor stores.

"Using a lot of bullets" is more likely a sign of a responsible hobbyist than any criminal activity.

It would be like trying to cut down on drunk driving by arresting anyone who bought more than 10 gallons of gas a week.

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 » Thu Mar 28, 2013 7:55 pm UTC

juststrange wrote:Not an original plan. I think the first time I heard this, Chris Rock said it:

If the threshold for making a comment in this thread is that it must be an original idea, we've been in trouble from the very beginning. :D

Bsob wrote:"Using a lot of bullets" is more likely a sign of a responsible hobbyist than any criminal activity.
But if the sale were regulated, there would be a database showing the responsible hobbyist buying a few cases at a time in a regular fashion. If that database were coupled with a responsible background check, people like the Aurora shooter (previous history of mental illness, just bought several guns and 1600 rounds of ammo online) could be flagged.

Regardless, I never claimed it would stop a guy robbing the liquor store (who probably isn't going to shoot you anyway). But it could be set up to heavily disadvantage handgun users, while leaving long-run owners unaffected. Which is the question that was posed.

Many arguments here (and elsewhere) tend to take a very narrow focus at one measure, and claim it will never work by itself or won't solve the problem completely. "Banning new sales will never work because of all the existing guns!" But those counter points often miss the larger picture of what improvements can be accomplished with amalgamated controls.

A handgun is cheaper and smaller than a life time's worth of ammunition for it, and so it's easier to smuggle or steal. Decrease the ready supply of ammo, and the bevy of guns in criminal hands become less easy to use on a continuing basis. Not impossible to use, but that's not the goal. Yes, of course people could still steal ammunition. But that's more difficult (and thus, less likely to happen) than a few clicks and a credit card online.

Bsob
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:44 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Bsob » Thu Mar 28, 2013 8:31 pm UTC

The problem is, illegitimate gun activity, usually uses less bullets than legitimate activity.

Buying bullets, like pretty much everything, is cheaper in bulk. Buying bullets in bulk, is not a sign of planned criminal activity.

Running background checks on people who buy bullets just seems like trying to price people out of their hobby. (because you know who will bear the costs of the checks).

A bullet registry has every problem a gun registry has and more. Bullets are easier to make, vastly more numerous, and more portable.

You are also never going to have "all the bullets a gun will use in its lifetime" around at the same time.

I'm not worried that a bullet database would fail to solve the problem completely, i'm worried about it solving the problem even a little bit at all.

Of course, I guess that depends on how you define "the problem".

Zindaras
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:11 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Zindaras » Thu Mar 28, 2013 9:01 pm UTC

As a European, I find the gun control debate to be quite interesting. I am personally in favour of the strictest gun laws, but I can see why people would want some guns. Where the NRA and other gun-lovers lose me, however, is with the refusal to look at assault rifles. In my opinion, I don't see how having guns that can fire ridiculously large amounts of bullets have any place anywhere in society. You can argue to a point that having a guy with a gun there might have helped at Newtown or Aurora or wherever. But having a guy with an assault rifle there just doesn't add anything to just having a guy with a gun there. Guns that can fire so many rounds so quickly are only useful if you want to hurt many people.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3726
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Gun Control

Postby EdgarJPublius » Thu Mar 28, 2013 9:20 pm UTC

The problems with these forms of 'bullet control' are thus:

1. We don't actually know how criminals access ammunition. Without more study, any regulation aimed at preventing criminals from accessing ammunition has a high likelihood of missing entirely if it targets methods that criminals just don't use.

2. We do have a decent idea how they obtain firearms, which is largely by theft and straw purchases through friends or family members. These methods are extremely resilient to regulation and restriction. If criminals are not already acquiring ammunition primarily through these channels, they could switch to doing so with minimal effort or additional burden.

3. Increased regulation and restriction will necessarily raise the price of ammo, disproportionately impacting legitimate hobbyists and firearm enthusiasts over criminals.

4. The hobbyists and enthusiasts aren't the only legal gun owners potentially impacted by such regulation. Low income groups at greater risk of being victimized are likely to acquire firearms for self and home defense. This is actually the target market for companies like Phoenix Arms, High Point, and the Ring of Fire corporations (and it's a pretty big market, these companies move hojillions of units per year). However, the same feature that makes these firearms attractive to low income groups (primarily their low price) also makes them attractive to criminals. If you try to craft regulation that restricts access to criminals, without raising prices for legitimate hobbyists, you may end up screwing these low income gun-owners.
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

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Mar 28, 2013 9:21 pm UTC

Sonuva...accidentally deleted a huge reply. This version may be more terse.

Ormurinn wrote:I'd be willing to bet that the guns used in self-defense in the majority of cases are qualitatively different to the ones used in murders. Shotguns for instance are used a lot in home defense in rural England (which is technically illegal due to our inhumane laws regarding self defense, but rarely punished as harshly as it could be because of the enormous public outcry whenever the judicial system tries to victimise the defender). Seems to me you need a way to restrict cheap pistols, but make shotguns, rifles, and the preferred handguns of CCW-permit holders more available.

Unfortunately, cheap pistols are, well, cheap and abundant. Any way to restrict them?

NB. The preponderance of shotguns used in self defense in the U.K may well be due to lesser restrictions on shotguns as opposed to other firearms in the U.K. Are shotguns or other longarms used more in self defense in the U.S also?


Some guns are, proportionately, more likely to be used in defense than in commission of a crime. The AR-15(and indeed, rifles in general) would be a good example of this(Shotguns aren't quite as good, but still better than handguns). Not being very concealable, they tend to be in the closet for home defense, yet are not good carry guns, so they don't get used by the person doing home intrusions often.

Unfortunately, while cheap handguns are the clear crime-choice, there are some practical problems to restricting cheap pistols. Primarily, it limits the ability of the poor to defend themselves. Given that the poor are more likely to be the victims of crime in the first place, that's distasteful to many.

And of course, the line that distinguishes a cheap handgun is a very fuzzy one. A used firearm with a few nicks and scrapes is generally going to command a lower price than a new one of the same model, but will be perfectly servicable. Banning gun sales below a given value screws up the resale market quite a bit. In addition, zip gun manufacturing activity historically coincides with such efforts. Presumably, it's more worthwhile to cobble together a dubious firearm when the prices are higher. Anti-zip gun regulation means that this factor only really applies to the criminal side, so one would expect banning cheap handguns to be more problematic for the poor but legitimate user than for the equally poor crook.

Azrael wrote:
Ormurinn wrote:Seems to me you need a way to restrict cheap pistols, but make shotguns, rifles, and the preferred handguns of CCW-permit holders more available.

Unfortunately, cheap pistols are, well, cheap and abundant. Any way to restrict them?

Via ammunition restrictions. While there are people who can and will load their own ammo (and that rate would increase), a very strict regulation of ammunition also addresses the 'steal/smuggle it once, use it many times' sort of problems.


The problem is, any ammunition restriction will target legitimate users vastly disproportionately. I'm a reasonably casual shooter. I hit the range maybe twice a month. When I do, I shoot for about an hour. This burns about 500 rounds a session. So, for me, I'm looking at ammo usage of about a thousand rounds a month. Serious competitive shooters will burn through a LOT more. A day of duck hunting can expend a couple of boxes of shotgun shells easy(25 to a box), if birds are flying. Varmit shooting will be vastly higher.

There's just no good way to discourage crime via ammunition when the amount of rounds used in a crime is generally a rounding error on a single session of shooting for a legitimate sportsman.

Azrael wrote:
jules.LT wrote:
juststrange wrote:An entry level, new, 12 gauge shotgun can be had for 300 dollars (over under). A Ruger 10-22 rifle for maybe $350-400. Even the cheapest semiautomatic handguns I've seen are that and then some, 500-700 dollars for the more popular models that would be decent for self defense (Beretta 92, Low cost 1911 varieties).
Is that so? I thought I had read several times in this thread that handguns were "cheap"?

Using Cabela's as a yard stick (they're one of the largest retails of outdoorsy stuff), they have both semi-automatic pistols and pump action shotguns starting just over $200.


That's a good metric. Cheap varies depending on product. A cheap house means something different than a cheap gun, or a cheap video game, but around the $200 price range are guns that would generally be considered cheap. Guns below this price exist, but often have significant disadvantages(single shots, for instance).

Ormurinn wrote:Hmm... I wonder if actuarial science could come into this. I'd be willing to bet some calibres are used in crimes more than others, so selective restrictions may be possible.

".45 ACP, go right ahead! You'll need to apply to the police dept for a certificate for those 9mm parabellums though..."

Of course, that'd just shift what calibres are used in crime, but theres likely a pre-existing stock of black-market guns, so thered' be a lot of inelasticity.

"Do your bit to end gun violence, shoot 10mm!"

Tyndmyr, you seem to be involved in the CCW subculture, are there preferred calibers for CCW that differ from those used in most shootings?


Well, I actually have somewhat decent data on this...but it's like pulling teeth to get good data. I happen to know a gun blogger that studies historically used calibers...the "wild west" era, .38 and 12ga were common, for instance, but you get a pretty good spread. NYC Police keep metrics, and there, it seems 9mm is most commonly used to shoot at police today...but 9mm is an extremely popular round all round, so I don't know how informative that is.

There's a huge amount of overlap, because there's a lot of preference variation among firearm owners, but regardless, even if we did such a model, we'd have to keep swapping the calibers because eventually the illegal guns will catch up, and firearm owners will not be terribly enthused about rebuying their collection every couple of years. It'd be hell on historical guns, too.

That said, one interesting demographic is that in the wake of mag limits, CCW calibers drift larger. One advantage of smaller calibers is to fit more rounds into a given space, so as that advantage decreases in value, people seem to trend towards larger rounds to make the most of limited capacity.

I doubt the people with the skill, inclination and capacity to handload are those committing gun crimes...


I suspect you're correct, at least right now. Ammo is cheap and mostly available(discounting the current scare), so there's little motivation for a criminal to take up this trade for the relatively few rounds they use. A solid reloading rig with plenty of fun options can easily clear a grand, so you need to shoot a fair bit for them to be economically viable.

That said, if you're creative, you can do small-quantity handloading of certain calibers without any real investment at all. I've dabbled a bit in 12ga reloads without using any tools made by anyone other than me, and it's certainly possible.

EdgarJPublius wrote:Typically, the CCW crowd considers 9mm or .380ACP to be the 'least powerful' calibers that are acceptable for defensive use, with a sizable faction that says any caliber that doesn't start with a '4' (in other words, .40S&W, .45ACP and .44Magnum) is for babies (actual ballistic data suggests that a modern hollowpoint 9mm should be comparably lethal to a .45ACP hollowpoint).


If I *had* to resort to using a handgun for SD(unlikely, as I don't have a carry permit because maryland, and I've got an AR at home), I'd be a bit split between my .22 and the .40. I have no doubt that the .40 is a vastly better round, but I have a lot more time on the P22, and am quite accurate with it, while my accuracy with the .40(which I've only had since jan) is sorta meh at best. I'll take shot placement over size...but ideally you do want a degree of both.

There's certainly a number of opinions and factions as to the best carry rounds, though. Let's just say that there's a LOT of variance on this score.

Azrael wrote:
juststrange wrote:Not an original plan. I think the first time I heard this, Chris Rock said it:

If the threshold for making a comment in this thread is that it must be an original idea, we've been in trouble from the very beginning. :D


Very true, :D

Azrael wrote:Regardless, I never claimed it would stop a guy robbing the liquor store (who probably isn't going to shoot you anyway). But it could be set up to heavily disadvantage handgun users, while leaving long-run owners unaffected. Which is the question that was posed.


That's actually quite challenging, because there is heavy crossover in calibers between handguns and rifles, especially in the CCW range of common calibers. Yes, very few people use elephant gun rounds in handguns(though there's always that one dude...), but outside of the edge cases, there's huge crossover. Often, it's intentional, as it's considered a selling point to only need one kind of ammunition for both rifle and pistol.

Opinions vary as to if this is an ideal loadout(I certainly don't adhere to it), but it's pretty common. 9mm carbines are damned common. Cheap even.

Azrael wrote:A handgun is cheaper and smaller than a life time's worth of ammunition for it, and so it's easier to smuggle or steal. Decrease the ready supply of ammo, and the bevy of guns in criminal hands become less easy to use on a continuing basis. Not impossible to use, but that's not the goal. Yes, of course people could still steal ammunition. But that's more difficult (and thus, less likely to happen) than a few clicks and a credit card online.


That's true of a lifetime supply of rounds for legitimate use, absolutely. It's probably not the case for criminal use. Criminals shoot fairly few rounds per instance, and generally, the sort of criminal who shoots places up gets caught within a few such crimes. Criminals with middling common sense will dump guns after crimes, as well, so they really only need a few rounds. A mag or two, maybe, and they'll be set for their criminal career.

But if the sale were regulated, there would be a database showing the responsible hobbyist buying a few cases at a time in a regular fashion. If that database were coupled with a responsible background check, people like the Aurora shooter (previous history of mental illness, just bought several guns and 1600 rounds of ammo online) could be flagged.


You can't actually buy guns online unless you're a firearms dealer(and comply with all manner of regulation). You can, of course, see ads online, and pursue buying them offline, but the actual sale will happen in person. This is sadly a bad case of misreporting.

1600 rounds is not unusual. A brick of .22 ammo is 500 or 550 rounds, depending on manufacturer. These were(before the current scare) commonly available at your local walmart, gun store, or wherever else for $20-30 bucks. It's a handy amount for shooting, and it's pretty normal to buy a couple of them. One of these boxes will fit in a roomy pants or jacket pocket. Thing is, it's not really relevant. Criminals don't actually need anything like that number of rounds(and he certainly didn't shoot anything like that). Hell, mass shootings are an edge case for criminality in general, and I can't think of an instance that's gone over a couple hundred rounds.

Buying a bunch of ammo at once is mostly indicative of the same things as someone buying a lot of nacho cheese at once at sam's club.

Zindaras wrote:As a European, I find the gun control debate to be quite interesting. I am personally in favour of the strictest gun laws, but I can see why people would want some guns. Where the NRA and other gun-lovers lose me, however, is with the refusal to look at assault rifles. In my opinion, I don't see how having guns that can fire ridiculously large amounts of bullets have any place anywhere in society. You can argue to a point that having a guy with a gun there might have helped at Newtown or Aurora or wherever. But having a guy with an assault rifle there just doesn't add anything to just having a guy with a gun there. Guns that can fire so many rounds so quickly are only useful if you want to hurt many people.


Well, ability to fire lots of rounds is something that is entirely uncorrelated with our defintion of "assault weapon"*. Any semi-automatic gun can fire bullets pretty quickly. And semi-autos are useful for a wide range of reasons.

Additionally, ammo capacity isn't really that big of a deal. The Aurora shooter's first choice of weapons was a shotgun. He then transitioned to the AR(with a huge mag), but the combination of huge mag and his inexperience with it jammed the gun. Mag jams like that typically feed multiple rounds into the chamber, rendering the gun non functional for quite a while until you sort the mess out. I presume this is what happened, because at this point, he transitioned to his pistol. Honestly, he'd probably have killed a lot more people if he'd been using smaller, more reliable mags. I suppose we should be thankful that mass shooters generally seem to be bad at such things.

*"assault weapon" term used because assault rifle is an entirely different term legally, and does not appear to be what he's talking about.

Ralith The Third
Don't Ask About His Nephews
Posts: 782
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ralith The Third » Thu Mar 28, 2013 9:31 pm UTC

jules.LT wrote:
Ormurinn wrote:Are shotguns or other longarms used more in self defense in the U.S also?
I wouldn't believe so. Small arms are cheaper and more convenient, so they are what people buy for self-defence.
The shotguns in the UK would mostly be bought for hunting, they're only used for defence because they're there.


The AR-15 is actually the primary home-defense firearm. Also, nitpicking here - any man-portable firearm qualifies as "small arms." The only possible exception is the higher end of light machines guns - the M60 and SAW - that might qualify as being past small arms. But, well, noone uses those because illegal and impractical.

Edit: Couple things - Hi-point is the lowest end, cheapest firearm that I (and many others) would consider "acceptable."

And by acceptable I mean not going to kill you by malfunctioning - either directly or indirectly. They are unergonomic, large, heavy, and have the crappiest triggers, but they're cheap as hell and go bang every time.

Secondly, a definition of terms - Typically, machine gun refers to any firearm which is fully automatic. It can be more specific towards larger, squad-serviced firearms, such as the SAW or M60.

An assault rifle is a firearm that possesses a pistol grip, is selective fire between semi-automatic and fully automatic and/or burst, and fires an intermediate cartridge, which is between a pistol and a full rifle in power. Examples of such cartridges are 5.56x45 and 7.62x39.

A semi-automatic firearm fires one round per trigger pull.

A fully automatic firearm fires rounds until your magazine depletes or you release the trigger.

The latter is illegal to own in the U.S. unless A. You have a Federal Firearms License or B. The firearm was made and registered prior to 1986. The cheapest fully-automatic firearms go for over $4000, and these are cheap, cheap MACs. You can make your own with an FFL, but an FFL requires a lot of paperwork and etc... also a storefront and actual firearm store.

Assault weapons are an amorphous term conjured up by legislators to confuse people into thinking they're trying to ban assault rifles. Assault weapons vary from legislation to legislation and are almost always about how a gun looks, not how lethal it is.
Omni.

Zindaras
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:11 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Zindaras » Thu Mar 28, 2013 9:49 pm UTC

Tyndmyr[quote="Zindaras wrote:As a European, I find the gun control debate to be quite interesting. I am personally in favour of the strictest gun laws, but I can see why people would want some guns. Where the NRA and other gun-lovers lose me, however, is with the refusal to look at assault rifles. In my opinion, I don't see how having guns that can fire ridiculously large amounts of bullets have any place anywhere in society. You can argue to a point that having a guy with a gun there might have helped at Newtown or Aurora or wherever. But having a guy with an assault rifle there just doesn't add anything to just having a guy with a gun there. Guns that can fire so many rounds so quickly are only useful if you want to hurt many people.


Well, ability to fire lots of rounds is something that is entirely uncorrelated with our defintion of "assault weapon"*. Any semi-automatic gun can fire bullets pretty quickly. And semi-autos are useful for a wide range of reasons.

Additionally, ammo capacity isn't really that big of a deal. The Aurora shooter's first choice of weapons was a shotgun. He then transitioned to the AR(with a huge mag), but the combination of huge mag and his inexperience with it jammed the gun. Mag jams like that typically feed multiple rounds into the chamber, rendering the gun non functional for quite a while until you sort the mess out. I presume this is what happened, because at this point, he transitioned to his pistol. Honestly, he'd probably have killed a lot more people if he'd been using smaller, more reliable mags. I suppose we should be thankful that mass shooters generally seem to be bad at such things.

*"assault weapon" term used because assault rifle is an entirely different term legally, and does not appear to be what he's talking about.[/quote]

Okay. Then go for a definition that actually works and restrict those guns. Ability to fire lots of rounds seems to me to be the main threat in situations like this. And I know the Aurora shooter failed to use his AR correctly, but what if he had succeeded? Then he could've done a lot more damage. And it's not like the expertise to operate that kind of weapon is reserved for non-loonies. At some point, one is going to come around that actually knows how to use a weapon like this correctly. What's the advantage of having access to weapons like this for the normal citizen? In self-defense they are far more likely to cause added damage (as far as I know, most of the time simply firing a single shot is enough to get the intruder to flee). For hunting it's just overkill.

In the end, in my opinion, gun laws need to be aimed at protecting people who get shot first, people who want to shoot second.

Ralith The Third
Don't Ask About His Nephews
Posts: 782
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ralith The Third » Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:11 pm UTC

Restrict what guns? Semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15?

They're the best self-defense weapon yet devised. They don't have issues with overpenetration, they don't have to worry about stray shot (unless you miss entirely), and they're powerful enough to drop people. They're not overkill for hunting, though. There are predators in the States, particularly the more wild bits, that won't get dropped by anything short of a full battle rifle round, if not multiple. I wouldn't want to take on a grizzly at short range with any firearm I can think of, for that matter, but a semi-auto .308 or .338 or 7.62x51 would be as close to ideal as it gets.

Firing a single shot can be enough to get an intruder to flee - and it often is. But not always. And when it isn't, it's going to be very, very nice to have the ability to fire more than four, or seven, or ten shots.
Omni.

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: Gun Control

Postby EMTP » Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:16 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:I'd be willing to bet that the guns used in self-defense in the majority of cases are qualitatively different to the ones used in murders. Shotguns for instance are used a lot in home defense in rural England (which is technically illegal due to our inhumane laws regarding self defense, but rarely punished as harshly as it could be because of the enormous public outcry whenever the judicial system tries to victimise the defender). Seems to me you need a way to restrict cheap pistols, but make shotguns, rifles, and the preferred handguns of CCW-permit holders more available.

Unfortunately, cheap pistols are, well, cheap and abundant. Any way to restrict them?


I've been thinking about a market-based form of gun control: insurance.

In this model, anyone purchasing a gun would be required by law to purchase (as a lump sum, or with a payment plan) insurance against accidental harm or damages from criminal activity, from the time of the purchase until the policy was transferred legally as part of a sale. You would remain responsible for guns lost or stolen from your possession.

Rather than crude and somewhat arbitrary restrictions on things like magazine size, this model would enlist actuarial expertise to price the insurance according to how likely the firearm is to be involved in an accident or a crime, how much damage is likely to result, how likely is the purchaser to be involved in an accident or a crime or to lose track of their firearm, etc.

Rather than the government taking the lead, we could expect the sellers of the policies to investigate the backgrounds of would-be gun owners, checking for criminal records, histories of suicidality or psychosis, etc.

Guns would be more expensive in this model, and more expensive based on an expert estimate of the risk of harm. Raising the price of a good is a reliable way to discourage its consumption. Uninsurable people would be unable to purchase guns. This could be done without raising taxes or beefing up government investigative services, two hot-button issues for many on the right (not that I would hope or expect to appease them thereby.)
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3726
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Gun Control

Postby EdgarJPublius » Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:11 pm UTC

Zindaras wrote:Okay. Then go for a definition that actually works and restrict those guns.


That's kind of part of the problem whenever the topic is brought up. As it happens, you can't actually write a law banning 'those things, that are different from the other things, you know the ones I'm talking about, right?' and when it get's around to actually trying to come up with a reasonable definition of 'assault weapons', it turns out that the things gun-control advocates think are 'assault weapons' are actually functionally identical to firearms everyone is kind of ok with, like hunting rifles and such, so the proposed ban comes down to cosmetic stuff and maybe a few actually functional components (many of which are really safety features) and the whole exercise becomes pointless and firearms manufacturers just get around the bans on cosmetic features with other cosmetic features anyway.

But really, that's a tiny part of why the concept of 'assault weapons', let alone attempting to restrict or ban them, is pointless. A much more important aspect of the issue is the fact that despite the extremely evocative name, 'assault weapons' are actually ridiculously poorly represented in actual crime and fatality statistics. More people are bludgeoned to death each year than are killed by 'assault weapons'. It's not even unambiguously clear that assault weapons are used disproportionately often in spree-killings, which themselves represent a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of crime and fatality statistics.


Ability to fire lots of rounds seems to me to be the main threat in situations like this.


It really isn't. And even if it was, 'assault weapons' don't actually fire any faster than any other semi-automatic firearm

What's the advantage of having access to weapons like this for the normal citizen? In self-defense they are far more likely to cause added damage (as far as I know, most of the time simply firing a single shot is enough to get the intruder to flee). For hunting it's just overkill.


For fun? For home defense? Most of the time, no shots are fired, simply displaying a weapon or an overt sign of resistance is enough to frighten an intruder. Firing a warning shot is actually counter-productive (it may be interpreted as a sign of weakness, nervousness or a desire to avoid confrontation, and wastes ammo and time you may need to stop a determined attacker) and recklessly dangerous (bullets don't stop just because you didn't mean to hit anything, that warning shot that made the intruder flee could, at the same time, hit an innocent bystander).
Semi-automatic rifles are actually more accurate than pistols, so strictly better for self defense from a 'not causing collateral damage' standpoint.
For hunting purposes, 'assault weapons' are actually mostly inadequate. Typical defensive rifle rounds such as 5.56mm NATO may be useful for hitting targets or stopping intruders, but are insufficient for humanely bringing down large game such as deer, and in many states/countries, using such rounds for hunting large game is illegal. They are pretty much ideal for a lot of pest and vermin species though.


EMTP wrote:
Ormurinn wrote:I'd be willing to bet that the guns used in self-defense in the majority of cases are qualitatively different to the ones used in murders. Shotguns for instance are used a lot in home defense in rural England (which is technically illegal due to our inhumane laws regarding self defense, but rarely punished as harshly as it could be because of the enormous public outcry whenever the judicial system tries to victimise the defender). Seems to me you need a way to restrict cheap pistols, but make shotguns, rifles, and the preferred handguns of CCW-permit holders more available.

Unfortunately, cheap pistols are, well, cheap and abundant. Any way to restrict them?


I've been thinking about a market-based form of gun control: insurance.

In this model, anyone purchasing a gun would be required by law to purchase (as a lump sum, or with a payment plan) insurance against accidental harm or damages from criminal activity, from the time of the purchase until the policy was transferred legally as part of a sale. You would remain responsible for guns lost or stolen from your possession.

Rather than crude and somewhat arbitrary restrictions on things like magazine size, this model would enlist actuarial expertise to price the insurance according to how likely the firearm is to be involved in an accident or a crime, how much damage is likely to result, how likely is the purchaser to be involved in an accident or a crime or to lose track of their firearm, etc.

Rather than the government taking the lead, we could expect the sellers of the policies to investigate the backgrounds of would-be gun owners, checking for criminal records, histories of suicidality or psychosis, etc.

Guns would be more expensive in this model, and more expensive based on an expert estimate of the risk of harm. Raising the price of a good is a reliable way to discourage its consumption. Uninsurable people would be unable to purchase guns. This could be done without raising taxes or beefing up government investigative services, two hot-button issues for many on the right (not that I would hope or expect to appease them thereby.)


The Insurance model is certainly an interesting one, and I think it has a lot of potential benefits. But I'm not sure it's useful for addressing the actual issues. Criminals don't usually buy their own guns legally so they won't bear the true cost of the insurance, in the best case scenario, criminals would simply go through straw purchasers with low insurance rates so in the end, legitimate owners would end up bearing the brunt of the cost while perpetrating almost none of the harm.
I'd also be concerned that groups at high risk of being victimized (typically low-income demographics) may become uninsurable or otherwise be stuck with high insurance costs.
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

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:33 pm UTC

Zindaras wrote:Okay. Then go for a definition that actually works and restrict those guns. Ability to fire lots of rounds seems to me to be the main threat in situations like this. And I know the Aurora shooter failed to use his AR correctly, but what if he had succeeded? Then he could've done a lot more damage. And it's not like the expertise to operate that kind of weapon is reserved for non-loonies. At some point, one is going to come around that actually knows how to use a weapon like this correctly. What's the advantage of having access to weapons like this for the normal citizen? In self-defense they are far more likely to cause added damage (as far as I know, most of the time simply firing a single shot is enough to get the intruder to flee). For hunting it's just overkill.

In the end, in my opinion, gun laws need to be aimed at protecting people who get shot first, people who want to shoot second.


There really isn't a definition that works. Rifles are by far the least likely category of firearm to be used for crime, despite being immensely popular. The AR-15 is owned by millions of Americans, and yet is basically never used in crime. In fact, it's disproportionately used for defense. Why would that be a gun you want to restrict?

Gun laws do need to protect people who get shot, certainly...but restricting weapons that are favored for defense is a very dodgy way of doing that. It'll probably have the opposite effect.

If the mass shooters had been using their guns correctly, nobody would have been shot, for any reasonable definition of correctly. By definition, people who shoot up lots of folks have something wrong with them, and are not using guns in a normally advised way. The Aurora shooter tried to go to a range to get familiar with his gun, and the range wouldn't let him shoot because he was acting odd. No laws were broken at this stage so they couldn't do anything more, but clearly he was acting strange enough for them to turn down business. I suspect the gun community has little interest in providing someone with such intentions with skills or training.

EMTP wrote:I've been thinking about a market-based form of gun control: insurance.

In this model, anyone purchasing a gun would be required by law to purchase (as a lump sum, or with a payment plan) insurance against accidental harm or damages from criminal activity, from the time of the purchase until the policy was transferred legally as part of a sale. You would remain responsible for guns lost or stolen from your possession.


This would be a strange form of insurance. Why I should I be responsible in any way for a gun stolen from me? Why are the actions of a criminal my responsibility?

Look, there's only so many bad things that can happen with a gun.
1. Accident due to gun malfunction. Incredibly rare. Manufacturer bears liability. Insurance is entirely unnecessary.
2. Suicide. Insurance doesn't pay out for suicides. There are good reasons for this, and we don't want to incentivize suicide.
3. Accident due to negligence. Not very common. Swimming pools are more dangerous. In either case, the negligent person bears the responsibility. I see no reason why guns should be special, and different than other forms of negligence.
4. Violent Crime. Criminals are not especially inclined to follow laws. Their weapons are not usually possessed legally. They're not likely to pay for insurance. This would basically be an exercise in inflicting costs they cause on legitimate owners.

So...I'm not seeing any reason for the insurance. It doesn't even really match the instances where we use insurance for other things.

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: Gun Control

Postby EMTP » Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:52 pm UTC

This would be a strange form of insurance. Why I should I be responsible in any way for a gun stolen from me?


Why not? You are responsible to keep the gun safe and secure. If you fail in that trust, obviously you are responsible to a certain extent for what follows.

But insurance does not presume you are responsible for what you are insured against. Fire insurance is not just insurance against fires that are your fault. Gun insurance would be insurance against misfortune as well as negligence. Insurance simply asks the gun owner to take responsibility for insuring the harm done by the gun they brought into circulation.

So...I'm not seeing any reason for the insurance.


You can be personally responsible for the 31,000 gun fatalities a year, if you like. Post a bond for the first few tens of billions, we'll call the issue closed.

The beauty of this is it puts the price in the hands of the market. If your gun is a significant risk, the insurance well be expensive. If you were right (first time for everything) the insurance would be cheap.
Violent Crime. Criminals are not especially inclined to follow laws. Their weapons are not usually possessed legally. They're not likely to pay for insurance. This would basically be an exercise in inflicting costs they cause on legitimate owners.


That's why you, the gun buyer, are responsible for the gun you passed on to killers because you didn't keep it secure. ;)
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

Ralith The Third
Don't Ask About His Nephews
Posts: 782
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ralith The Third » Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:02 am UTC

If someone steals my car and runs over someone with it, am I responsible?
Omni.

User avatar
Brace
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:40 am UTC
Location: Denver, Co
Contact:

Re: Gun Control

Postby Brace » Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:08 am UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:I'd also be concerned that groups at high risk of being victimized (typically low-income demographics) may become uninsurable or otherwise be stuck with high insurance costs.


He sees this as a plus, just fyi...
"The future is the only kind of property that the masters willingly concede to the slaves" - Albert Camus

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3726
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Gun Control

Postby EdgarJPublius » Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:21 am UTC

I don't see how that can be a defensible position, but I suppose it fits with the implicit assumptions of gun-control that people who aren't wealthy suburbanites don't actually have rights.

Edit:
I believe this has been discussed in the thread before. Politicians and public figures who advocate gun-control have rights. Diane Feinstein had a concealed handgun permit, Jim Carry has armed bodyguards, etc. So clearly, they aren't against the idea of firearms, they accept that firearms can be used defensively and responsibly. But these are people who advocate legislation that would prevent other people, in particular the urban poor, but in general anyone who isn't a 'special person' like themselves, from actually obtaining firearms legally for the very same purposes they themselves make use of them.

Maybe the thought that gun-control advocates don't actually believe others have rights is a bit strong, but what am I supposed to think!? Here is someone, and not even the first in this thread to do so, who is advocating that we should price firearms out of reach of those most likely to be victimized and therefore most likely to require a gun for self defense. "Oh, this is a person who really respects the rights of others and understands that those less fortunate than themself may have desires, needs and requirements different from their own."
Last edited by EdgarJPublius on Tue Apr 02, 2013 10:00 pm 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

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 Mar 29, 2013 12:57 am UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:I don't see how that can be a defensible position, but I suppose it fits with the implicit assumptions of gun-control that people who aren't wealthy suburbanites don't actually have rights.


Out. Get the fuck out.

User avatar
Brace
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:40 am UTC
Location: Denver, Co
Contact:

Re: Gun Control

Postby Brace » Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:14 am UTC

That is the logical outcome for any policy which advocates raising cost of ownership on firearms or ammunition as a means to an end. In the United States, gun ownership is a constitutional right. What brings intention into question is the fact that this is being advocated even though it is crystal clear it won't actually achieve the stated end at all. Meaning, its only function is to deprive the poor of the ability to exercise their rights. Whether this peculiar state of the argument is the product of selective reading skills, failure to extrapolate fully on premises, or deliberate malice is still an open question, of course. It might also seem justifiable as a means to an end other than the stated one, namely, the piecemeal complete abolition of private firearms ownership (a conclusion which many gun rights advocates are drawn to when they encounter repeated bad faith argument from the gun control crowd).
"The future is the only kind of property that the masters willingly concede to the slaves" - Albert Camus

User avatar
Brace
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:40 am UTC
Location: Denver, Co
Contact:

Re: Gun Control

Postby Brace » Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:21 am UTC

Alright, here's an option to restore good faith. We recognize that the provision of positive rights is sometimes necessary for the maintenance of negative rights in this country, most notably in the form of public defenders. There are those who can't afford a defense attorney, who would thus be effectively deprived of fair representation and due process. So, we can ban junk guns, but in exchange, people below a certain poverty line should qualify for a subsidy proportional to their lack of means to buy one hunting rifle or shotgun, one home defense rifle or shotgun, and one concealed carry pistol.
"The future is the only kind of property that the masters willingly concede to the slaves" - Albert Camus

Ralith The Third
Don't Ask About His Nephews
Posts: 782
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ralith The Third » Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:00 am UTC

Brace wrote:Alright, here's an option to restore good faith. We recognize that the provision of positive rights is sometimes necessary for the maintenance of negative rights in this country, most notably in the form of public defenders. There are those who can't afford a defense attorney, who would thus be effectively deprived of fair representation and due process. So, we can ban junk guns, but in exchange, people below a certain poverty line should qualify for a subsidy proportional to their lack of means to buy one hunting rifle or shotgun, one home defense rifle or shotgun, and one concealed carry pistol.



Drop the hunting. Hunting's not an integral right - self defense is.
Omni.

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Mar 29, 2013 3:59 am UTC

EMTP wrote:
This would be a strange form of insurance. Why I should I be responsible in any way for a gun stolen from me?


Why not? You are responsible to keep the gun safe and secure. If you fail in that trust, obviously you are responsible to a certain extent for what follows.


Look, if you're reckless, you can and will be sued. Just like if you leave the car running with the keys in the vehicle.

But that doesn't mean every gun theft is the victim's fault, just like not every car theft is the victim's fault.

But insurance does not presume you are responsible for what you are insured against. Fire insurance is not just insurance against fires that are your fault. Gun insurance would be insurance against misfortune as well as negligence. Insurance simply asks the gun owner to take responsibility for insuring the harm done by the gun they brought into circulation.


Fire insurance is insuring YOUR property against harm. Entirely different scenario. The gun owner is responsible for what he does with the gun. Insurance either takes the form of insuring you from harm, which, in this case, takes the form of life insurance and homeowners/renter's insurance. That's already covered. You don't want double dipping on insurance to be a thing.

The other form is insuring yourself from liability for your actions. What you have proposed is neither of these things, but instead, an attempt to shift liability from the crook stealing a gun to the homeowner who was stolen from. That's ridiculous.

So...I'm not seeing any reason for the insurance.


You can be personally responsible for the 31,000 gun fatalities a year, if you like. Post a bond for the first few tens of billions, we'll call the issue closed.


That's an emotional statement, not a logical argument. Go on, show a reason, not merely a "do what I want" post.

The beauty of this is it puts the price in the hands of the market. If your gun is a significant risk, the insurance well be expensive. If you were right (first time for everything) the insurance would be cheap.


This would certainly be the case if you were only insuring yourself. Insuring all the criminals kind of screws that logic up horribly. An efficient market is one in which the actor bears the responsibility of his actions. Merely saying "but there's a market" because theres dollars involved proves nothing.

Violent Crime. Criminals are not especially inclined to follow laws. Their weapons are not usually possessed legally. They're not likely to pay for insurance. This would basically be an exercise in inflicting costs they cause on legitimate owners.


That's why you, the gun buyer, are responsible for the gun you passed on to killers because you didn't keep it secure. ;)


Nothing is entirely secure. Banks have been robbed, so even if I had a bank vault in my home, it is not possible for me to secure my guns such that nobody could ever possibly gain access to them. I certainly can't afford to hire armed guards to watch my guns. This is basically a big ol' ball of victim blaming, and setting such a standard would mean that only the rich could safely keep guns. And the crooks, naturally.

Yes, if someone passes guns to killers willingly or negligently, there is, and should be, liability. But if my guns are taken from a locked area in my home when I'm at work or on a trip...that's not "me passing it on to killers".

scienceroboticspunk
Posts: 290
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(or in NJ, USA)

Re: Gun Control

Postby scienceroboticspunk » Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:58 am UTC

I just want to point out one tiny thing that doesn't help either side of the argument but this statement is not funny true.
You can't actually buy guns online unless you're a firearms dealer(and comply with all manner of regulation). You can, of course, see ads online, and pursue buying them offline, but the actual sale will happen in person. This is sadly a bad case of misreporting.

There is one exception to this that I can think of and that is a certified citizen purchasing from the civilian marksmanship program. This is a way a fair amount of US citizens get surplus firearms from the government.
-To be certified one needs to prove they are a citizen
-Proof of age
-Membership in an affiliated organization
-Proof of firearm related activity
-Legally eligible to purchase a firearm
http://www.odcmp.com/Sales/eligibility.htm
These are still just long rifles though and for the most part they are all bolt-action. I just wanted to point out that from time to time rifles may be shipped to a home using the postal service.
these are words
type, type, type

Ralith The Third
Don't Ask About His Nephews
Posts: 782
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ralith The Third » Fri Mar 29, 2013 6:26 am UTC

That is correct. However, it's pretty heavily legislated, also, M1 Garands are not exactly huge crime-spree guns.
Omni.

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:07 am UTC

scienceroboticspunk wrote:I just want to point out one tiny thing that doesn't help either side of the argument but this statement is not funny true.
You tin't actually buy guns online unless you're a firearms dealer(and comply with all manner of regulation). You tin, of course, see ads online, and pursue buying them offline, but the actual sale will happen in person. This is sadly a bad case of misreporting.

There is one exception to this that I tin think of and that is a certified citizen purchasing from the civilian marksmanship program. This is a way a fair amount of US citizens get surplus firearms from the government.
-To be certified one needs to prove they are a citizen
-Proof of age
-Membership in an affiliated organization
-Proof of firearm related activity
-Legally eligible to purchase a firearm
http://www.odcmp.com/Sales/eligibility.htm
These are still just long rifles though and for the most part they are all bolt-action. I just wanted to point out that from time to time rifles may be shipped to a home using the postal service.


There's a couple other minor exceptions, too...blackpowder guns, say. But definitely not including anything the Aurora shooter was carrying.

It is perfectly possible that he saw an ad online, and that determined where he made his purchase, but that's entirely different from "ordered off the internet".

juststrange
Posts: 296
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:57 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby juststrange » Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:03 pm UTC

Ralith The Third wrote:An assault rifle be a firearm that possesses a pistol grip, be selective beflame between semi-automatic and fully automatic and/or burst, and fires an intermediate cartridge, which be between a pistol and a full rifle in power. Examples of such cartridges be 5.56x45 and 7.62x39.

A semi-automatic firearm fires one round per trigger pull.

A fully automatic firearm fires rounds until your magazine depletes or you release the trigger.

The latter be illegal to own in the U.S. unless A. You have a Federal Firearms License or B. The firearm be-did made and registered prior to 1986. The cheapest fully-automatic firearms go for over $4000, and these be cheap, cheap MACs. You tin make your own with an FFL, but an FFL requires a lot of paperwork and etc... also a storefront and actual firearm store.

Assault weapons be an amorphous term conjured up by legislators to confuse people into thinking they be trying to ban assault rifles. Assault weapons vary from legislation to legislation and be almost always about how a gun looks, not how lethal it be.


To clarify a few bits here, the US Federal Assault weapons ban categorized rifles as follows:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher


Its not super hard to find something with 2 of those attributes, all of which are cosmetic really. And its not super hard to find something that fires the same caliber just as fast without those attributes.

The full auto thing, like you noted, is just finding one, paying for the tax stamp, and getting ownership transferred in the registry. Not super hard, just $$$.


Also, as someone who just bought a gun online, its not super hard. All you need to do is contact the seller, provide the info for a licensed FFL to recieve the gun (i.e. your local pawnshop). He checks it, calls USPS and ships it to the pawnshop, they give it to you, usually after charging you $20 to $100 depending on if its a regulated firearm in your state.

User avatar
Brace
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:40 am UTC
Location: Denver, Co
Contact:

Re: Gun Control

Postby Brace » Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:05 pm UTC

Another possibility is to get a C&R FFL and list your place of business as your home, in which case eligible curio and relic guns are legal to ship directly to your home. This requires bookkeeping and an annual fee though.

And the point of online ordering is that you still have to fill out a 4473, go through a background check, and ultimately deal with a flesh and blood human before getting your gun, so it's not a "loophole" as commonly described.
"The future is the only kind of property that the masters willingly concede to the slaves" - Albert Camus

scienceroboticspunk
Posts: 290
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(or in NJ, USA)

Re: Gun Control

Postby scienceroboticspunk » Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:16 pm UTC

Yeah I was trying to avoid the C&R licensing since I pretty much view that as an FLL.

I was not sure if I should have included black powders in my list since a fair amount of states do not view them as firearms in the same sense as modern sporting rifles, my state does but we are the opposite of gun friendly.
these are words
type, type, type


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests