Gun Control 7

[ljkeane]

From the last thread.

Sorry, but I don't understand that position. There are lots of situations where people prefer not to give up some right because of the abuse it makes possible in the future.

In the context of this discussion 'beneficial' basically means less people getting shot and less crimes committed with firearms.

If you don't think it will be beneficial or you oppose the regulation in principle then fine, you oppose the law. That's how the political process is intended to work. If, on the other hand, you think the idea has merit but you oppose it and are willing to allow the costs involved because you want to engage in political manuevring or you have no respect for the democratic process and want to make your ignoring of the law easier in some theoretical future that's a pretty reprehensible position to take for me.

The slippery slope argument is pretty weak. If there's enough support to ban guns then there's enough support to pass a registration law, the reverse isn't necessarily true and there's nothing stopping people from opposing future law changes when they come up.

[Fragile Bird]

The last thread also contained an argument about what kinds of weapons were used in various mass shootings over the past 20 years.

You may find this Mother Jones article very informative.

[Howdyphillip]

The argument of what type of bans on guns that is going on here is the equivalent to what type of religions that you want to not allow to be practiced. The answer is none unless we all agree as a society to change our constitution.

[Guest Raidne]

The only remaining issue I have any interest in is whether anyone could possibly come up with any response to Tormund's total takedown of that last argument in favor of banning AR-15s and the like.

[Kouran]

The argument of what type of bans on guns that is going on here is the equivalent to what type of religions that you want to not allow to be practiced. The answer is none unless we all agree as a society to change our constitution.

Not to be a dick, but a lot of the people who want bans on guns would be happy to ban religion as well.

[Guest Raidne]

You may find this Mother Jones article very informative.

I had my doubts right from the start, which were justified about two paragraphs in...

The arsenal included dozens of assault weapons and semiautomatic handguns.

I am going to ask for your honest opinion: what do you think this means? The legal definition of an "assault weapon" (although that definition is now defunct) includes many semi-automatic handguns. Are "semiautomatic handguns" those that are other than those that meet the definition of "assault weapon?" Where are semiautomatic rifles? Are those all listed as "assault weapons"?

ETA: OTOH, assuming the categorization of "semiautomatic handguns" was done accurately, that's in line with what Tormund said, since they account for half of all weapons used in mass shootings.

[straits]

Is the constitution in any way based on the Bible, regarded religiously as backup in arguments, or is it a piece of paper?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The last thread also contained an argument about what kinds of weapons were used in various mass shootings over the past 20 years.

You may find this Mother Jones article very informative.

The problem is that just because a certain weapon was used doesn't mean the crime would not have happened if that particular weapon was banned. Shooters who could not obtain an assault rifle likely would have just used a pistol instead. Frankly, "assault weapons" aren't really a great weapon for that kind of shooting anyway. The primary advantage they have is accuracy at longer distances, and penetrating power, which generally isn't an issue in these massacres of unarmed, unarmored people. Assault weapons (and their ammunition) are generally much bulkier than you'd have with a handgun, which is a disadvantage. A standard pistol magazine may hold 15 (or more rounds), the ammunition is cheaper and easier to carry etc.. So really, a ban on "military-style", semi-automatic assault rifles is a headline grabber, but not much more.

[Guest Raidne]

I believe the answer to that question is (d).

[Datepalm]

Mod:

Let me take the opportunity of a new thread to remind everyone that this is a sensitive, polarizing topic, with strong personal opinions on both sides. We will gladly close it if we feel it's getting out of hand, turning into a flamewar or a hatefest.

Things not to do in this thread include, but are not limited to: personal attacks and insults, ad hominem arguments, rudeness, unnecessary vitriol, things that may be considered libel, group smears, baseless accusations of racism, gendered insults, ethnic stereotypes, legal advice, promises to report people to the police, FBI, CIA or NKVD, death threats and bad punctuation.

[Galactus]

Has anyone seriously even argued about assault weapons though? Isn't that just a weird american hangup that no one sane cares about?

if I had to ban weapons (rather than implement registration schemes, etc.) I'd probably try to go after pistols rather than long guns. While these mass-shootings were committed with rifles, most violent crime is committed using handguns (or at least that's the case here) simply for practical reasons.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

From the last thread.

In the context of this discussion 'beneficial' basically means less people getting shot and less crimes committed with firearms.

I might concede the rhetorical point if we were talking about an action that actually would significantly reduce the number of people shot and crimes committed. I don't think registration, standing alone, falls into that category. I'm not really even sure what it is supposed to accomplish. To track the owner of the weapon (assuming no theft, etc.) after it has been used to kill people and then is conveniently left at the scene so the legal owner can be tracked through registration paperwork? IMHO, any benefit from registration alone would be minimal.

If you don't think it will be beneficial or you oppose the regulation in principle then fine, you oppose the law. That's how the political process is intended to work. If, on the other hand, you think the idea has merit but you oppose it and are willing to allow the costs involved because you want to engage in political manuevring or you have no respect for the democratic process and want to make your ignoring of the law easier in some theoretical future that's a pretty reprehensible position to take for me.

I don't really think it is possible to discuss that in the abstract. Obviously, a great present benefit outweighs a small future risk. On the other hand, a small present benefit may be outweighed by a great future risk.

[Fragile Bird]

It lists 62 shootings with data that I assume can be correlated with the lists Tormund and Kalbear are arguing over.

As for myself personally, I think you are barking up the wrong tree when handguns are the weapon used in 60% of US homicides. Since the two were arguing over a 24 year period, I added up the homicides committed in the US over the period 1988 - 2011 from this chart. The total is 446,891 homicides, and if 60% are committed with handguns, that means 254,727 dead, and if 3% were committed with rifles, that's 13,406. I can't find the statistics I saw yesterday showing a further breakdown of weapons used, but I'm sure someone has them.

Someone (BWB?) suggested that if people were so worried about personal safety in their homes, they should be allowed to have handguns at home, but otherwise they needed to be locked up at a gun club or some other suitable facility.

The sheer numbers seems to make the argument against handguns the most significant one.

[Howdyphillip]

Mod:

Let me take the opportunity of a new thread to remind everyone that this is a sensitive, polarizing topic, with strong personal opinions on both sides. We will gladly close it if we feel it's getting out of hand, turning into a flamewar or a hatefest.

Things not to do in this thread include, but are not limited to: personal attacks and insults, ad hominem arguments, rudeness, unnecessary vitriol, things that may be considered libel, group smears, baseless accusations of racism, gendered insults, ethnic stereotypes, legal advice, promises to report people to the police, FBI, CIA or NKVD, death threats and bad punctuation.

I'm Fucked...

(See, I capitalized fucked incorrectly and left a sentence off with three periods.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Has anyone seriously even argued about assault weapons* though?

Dude, we banned them for 10 years.

*from now on, every time someone says "assault weapon" or "clip", I'm carrying a gun into a bar

[Galactus]

I might concede the rhetorical point if we were talking about an action that actually would significantly reduce the number of people shot and crimes committed. I don't think registration, standing alone, falls into that category. I'm not really even sure what it is supposed to accomplish. To track the owner of the weapon (assuming no theft, etc.) after it has been used to kill people and then is left at the scene? IMHO, any benefit from registration alone would be minimal.

This is for general issues of course, not these specific cases of mass murder.

The way registration would work is that A) there would be a clear registry of legal guns and their owners that could be easily demonstrated.

B) This makes it easier to tell if a gun is illegal. (IE: If it's not in the register registered to this person)

Basically, it'd work just like a driver's licensce, but with guns, and the licensce is also connected to the actual individual weapon in question.

Basically it gives a greater chance of someone using a weapon illegally getting caught before he can actually use his weapon illegally.

[Guest Raidne]

Frankly, "assault weapons" aren't really a great weapon for that kind of shooting anyway. The primary advantage they have is accuracy at longer distances, and penetrating power, which generally isn't an issue in these massacres of unarmed, unarmored people. Assault weapons (and their ammunition) are generally much bulkier than you'd have with a handgun, which is a disadvantage. A standard pistol magazine may hold 15 (or more rounds), the ammunition is cheaper and easier to carry etc.. So really, a ban on "military-style", semi-automatic assault rifles is a headline grabber, but not much more.

I am confused. Didn't the military switch to the M-16 precisely because of the interest in laying down a spray of defensive fire in a terrain where you can't see your enemy well enough to get a clear shot and have an interest in carrying lighter ammunition? I thought the disadvantage of the M-16 was a lack of penetrating power? Wouldn't that be the same with the AR-15 as it's essentially the same gun only without automatic fire?

Also, I would guess that the M-16/AR-15 is considered accurate at a longer distances than most handguns, but you're making it sound like it was produced for the purpose of shooting accurately over long-distances, and I just don't believe that is the case, right?

[Galactus]

Not to mention that while probably not something the shooters are thinking of, high penetrating power probably adds to the death toll (people being hit through walls, while taking cover, etc.)

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I am confused. Didn't the military switch to the M-16 precisely because of the interest in laying down a spray of defensive fire in a terrain where you can't see your enemy well enough to get a clear shot and have an interest in carrying lighter ammunition? I thought the disadvantage of the M-16 was a lack of penetrating power? Wouldn't that be the same with the AR-15 as it's essentially the same gun only without automatic fire?

Also, I would guess that the M-16/AR-15 is considered accurate at a longer distances than most handguns, but you're making it sound like it was produced for the purpose of shooting accurately over long-distances, and I just don't believe that is the case, right?

You have it fairly accurate. The M16 replaced the M14 because soldiers weren't shooting at Germans 300 yards across a European farm field, they were shooting Vietcong somewhere up in a tree 50 yards away. It's lighter and uses lighter ammunition.

The M16 and it's counterparts are actually what gave rise to the term "assault rifle". It was used to set them apart from the more traditional "battle rifle" which carried a heavier round.

[Guest Raidne]

The sheer numbers seems to make the argument against handguns the most significant one.

Are "assault weapons" as defined in that Mother Jones chart all rifles? Or not?

It just doesn't tell me a lot to know that some percentage of guns used in mass shootings had extended grips or telescoping stocks or whatever, know what I mean? I know people keep saying this, but when you say "assault weapon" or Galactus says it, or anyone else, I have no idea what you mean. If you could define what you mean by that term, that would help me understand what you are saying considerably.