Gun controll - Can someone put a bullet in this thing?

[Jon Sprunk]

To Jon's point about the "cold dead hands" crowd, as long as Dianne Feinstein, or even Joe "I don't understand basic gun safety rules" Biden are seen as part of the 'reasonable gun control' side, your 'reasonable gun owner' has a ton to lose, and nothing to gain, by supporting any gun control proposal. So of course they aren't going to come out of the woodwork.

I hear you, but when your position is "will not budge an inch on this issue," you have nothing to negotiate with. If you end up compromising just a little and coming out with what would normally be considered a pretty good deal, your base views it as a loss and a betrayal.

[lupis42]

I hear you, but when your position is "will not budge an inch on this issue," you have nothing to negotiate with. If you end up compromising just a little and coming out with what would normally be considered a pretty good deal, your base views it as a loss and a betrayal.

It's a matter of perspective. There are a lot of inches I'd be prepared to talk about giving, as long as it led to getting something. But historically, almost all of the changes in our gun laws have been in the direction of more restriction, repeal of even the completely stupid ones (e.g. suppressors) is treated as an out there position, and the other side consistently succeeds in getting the word 'compromise' framed as "not all of the restrictions we want pass".

Let me try to characterize this for you: in my lifetime, there have been three big wins for gun rights at the federal law level:

1) FOPA (which we got at the expense of the Hughes amendment, which ensures that machine guns, though still legally available to private owners, are priced out of the reach of us mere plebs, even though they were used in approximately zero crimes of violence), a federal law which shouldn't have been necessary in the first place.

2) The end of the federal AWB, which we got only because the only way to get the damn thing passed in the first place was to put a 10-year limit on it.

3) Heller and MacDonald, a pair of 5-4 court decisions saying that yes, the second amendment does say what basically everyone rational has pretty much known all this time, namely that owning guns is a right as far as the constitution is concerned - and it will be as long as the supreme court has 5 right-leaning judges.

Legislatively, as far as I can tell, every time we've budged an inch, it's been towards the more restrictions side. So no, I don't view us as intractable, but rather as having realized that nobody has any interest in making a serious offer of compromise.

[Kouran]

Well it looks like Paul, Lee and Cruz are setting up another filibuster, this time for gun control legislation. They apparently sent a letter to Harry Reid, who seems known to happy.

[Jon Sprunk]

It's a matter of perspective. There are a lot of inches I'd be prepared to talk about giving,

Then I'm clearly not talking about you. I think the majority of people are in your boat, willing to discussing some steps we might take to reduce the gun violence as long as private ownership is still protected. I aim my sharpest criticism at those at the extremes on both ends of the bell curve, those who seek to ban all weapons everywhere, and those who seek no restrictions on weapon ownership/usage anywhere.

Legislatively, as far as I can tell, every time we've budged an inch, it's been towards the more restrictions side. So no, I don't view us as intractable, but rather as having realized that nobody has any interest in making a serious offer of compromise.

That's why I don't advocate for gun owners to just lay down their weapons and roll over. We, as a country, need that synergy between the two sides. The tide seems to be going in the gun-control side's direction, but that needle has wavered back and forth since at least the sixties. A decade from now, the tide may shift the other way as people (voters) feel that gun-control has moved too far. That's the politics of it. I am more concerned with the results.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I hear you, but when your position is "will not budge an inch on this issue," you have nothing to negotiate with. If you end up compromising just a little and coming out with what would normally be considered a pretty good deal, your base views it as a loss and a betrayal.

Well, if you take the "cold dead hands" crowd literally, then they should be irrelevant unless someone is actually trying to take their guns. Right? And the problem is that while the overall weight of opinion is not in favor of taking guns, there are enough who are to make the cold hands crowd nervous.

Anyway, there was a Senate deal on background checks that could actually pass, except the pro-gun control side insists that all private sales and weapons be recorded by the FFL. And because the pro-gun control side isn't willing to do that, we'll get nothing instead.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26/senate-background-check-talks_n_2958509.html

So who's really not willing to compromise?

[Jon Sprunk]

Anyway, there was a Senate deal on background checks that could actually pass, except the pro-gun control side insists that all private sales and weapons be recorded by the FFL. And because the pro-gun control side isn't willing to do that, we'll get nothing instead.

So who's really not willing to compromise?

Let's see where it lands before deciding during negotiations that one side or the other isn't willing to compromise. I mean, the fact that they're discussing it at all means both sides have already compromised (if you work back from the extreme fringes).

[lupis42]

Then I'm clearly not talking about you. I think the majority of people are in your boat, willing to discussing some steps we might take to reduce the gun violence as long as private ownership is still protected. I aim my sharpest criticism at those at the extremes on both ends of the bell curve, those who seek to ban all weapons everywhere, and those who seek no restrictions on weapon ownership/usage anywhere.

Fair enough. I'm just making the case (which is true, as far as these things go, for most of the gun owners I can speak for personally, though far from all) that the tendency has been towards taking extreme positions as a matter of frustration, or as a strategic stance, and that this is a rational reaction to the rhetorical and political reality of the last few decades.

To put it differently, I'd say the "cold dead hands"/"will fight rather than allow weapons to be confiscated" crowd exists, and is gaining numbers from a mass of people who

1) Think that the ideal legal landscape looks very different from what we have now

2) Would be willing to support, or at least tolerate, some restrictions

3) Have a lot of technical and social insight into what might make restrictions work

Getting a workable solutions will have a lot to do with getting the trust back, and one of the best ways to do that is to abandon the "all existing restrictions are the starting point, and we compromise on what to add" mindset. Otherwise, this is going to become more adversarial, not less.

[Kouran]

MSNBC has a headline right now saying NEWTOWN SHOOTER FIRED 154 BULLETS IN LESS THAN 5 MINUTES!!!1111!!!.

Ok so lets see thats a shot every ~1.75 seconds. I can fire that with aimed shots let alone point shooting with a magazine feed semi-auto. Big fucking deal. Of course the 154 shots will be used as yet another reason why "assualt" weapons should be banned.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

MSNBC has a headline right now saying NEWTOWN SHOOTER FIRED 154 BULLETS IN LESS THAN 5 MINUTES!!!1111!!!.

Ok so lets see thats a shot every ~1.75 seconds. I can fire that with aimed shots let alone point shooting with a magazine feed semi-auto. Big fucking deal. Of course the 154 shots will be used as yet another reason why "assualt" weapons should be banned.

You hate to even think about the actual shooting in detail, but I still say that handguns, with their lighter ammunition and less bulk, would be much better for shooting unarmed people at close range. Assault weapons look scary, but their primary value over handguns is accuracy at range, and that's just not an issue in most of these scenarios because you're not going to be using the sights anyway.

[TerraPrime]

This only matters if most of these murderers' only goal is to achieve the most effective/accurate killings. From the track record, these people were concerned ALSO about the stylistic elements (see Columbine) as much as the actual results. Spraying a room full of bullets may not kill as many, but it might feel "cool" and "appropriate" to them.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

This only matters if most of these murderers' only goal is to achieve the most effective/accurate killings. From the track record, these people were concerned ALSO about the stylistic elements (see Columbine) as much as the actual results. Spraying a room full of bullets may not kill as many, but it might feel "cool" and "appropriate" to them.

So if they couldn't use an assault rifle, they wouldn't have done it at all? Just kept on with their normal lives?

[TerraPrime]

So if they couldn't use an assault rifle, they wouldn't have done it at all? Just kept on with their normal lives?

That's not my argument.

I'm only pointing out that while you and lupis and Tormund can wax philosophical about how stupid it was to use these weapons, given the range and accuracy, these were, clearly, not the factors that these killers considered. Or if they did, they opted for these inferior weapons (for this context) any way. So the response from folks on your side of the camp, where you poo-poo the wisdom in banning these assault weapons in an attempt to reduce the casualty rate of massive shootings, seems misplaced.

[lupis42]

I'm only pointing out that while you and lupis and Tormund can wax philosophical about how stupid it was to use these weapons, given the range and accuracy, these were, clearly, not the factors that these killers considered.

The argument here is not that these weapons were a stupid choice, as such. Rather it is that these weapons are not in any obvious way an ideal choice, and so to talk about them as politicians are, as though they are in some way mechanically different is factually wrong.

[Guest RK Unsmoteable]

Assault weapons look scary, but their primary value over handguns is accuracy at range, and that's just not an issue in most of these scenarios because you're not going to be using the sights anyway.

I've thought of a better way to ask a question I've asked you before: If I had rarely to never shot any kind of firearm before and up and decide I'm going on a murderous rampage, am I going to shoot more people with a semi-auto handgun or an AR-15?

As I actually am pretty inexperienced with firearms and will be in a position to test this out next weekend, minus the murderous rampage part, I'll report back on what my personal experience was. I would guess that it's not that easy for an experienced firearms user to really put themselves in the position of someone who barely has any idea of what they're doing, but I really wouldn't know.

This only matters if most of these murderers' only goal is to achieve the most effective/accurate killings. From the track record, these people were concerned ALSO about the stylistic elements (see Columbine) as much as the actual results. Spraying a room full of bullets may not kill as many, but it might feel "cool" and "appropriate" to them.

Hell, I'd go so far as to say forget "also" - how about "only"? The Columbine shooters explicitly chose their weapons for that reason and then doctored them up further to the point where they couldn't even shoot their sawed-off shotguns without injuring themselves.

That is WHY you can't just ban whatever weapons that type of killer likes to use and watch the number of incidents go down - they'll just get whatever it is they can get that they think is the coolest. There's no ending it that way.

I hear you, but when your position is "will not budge an inch on this issue," you have nothing to negotiate with. If you end up compromising just a little and coming out with what would normally be considered a pretty good deal, your base views it as a loss and a betrayal.

You're still not doing a great job of putting yourself in the shoes of somebody on the other side. Pretend Congress wants to pass a law that will provide funding to state police departments for drones equipped with top-of-the-line surveillance technology to fly around residential neighborhoods collecting any and all evidence of illegal activity to serve as probable cause for search warrants. Would my opposition to that bill be something you would really expect me to "compromise just a little" on?

[Jon Sprunk]

You're still not doing a great job of putting yourself in the shoes of somebody on the other side. Pretend Congress wants to pass a law that will provide funding to state police departments for drones equipped with top-of-the-line surveillance technology to fly around residential neighborhoods collecting any and all evidence of illegal activity to serve as probable cause for search warrants. Would my opposition to that bill be something you would really expect me to "compromise just a little" on?

But mere opposition isn't a position. Now if you said, "My position is that no drones should ever be used for anything, ever, and I will not budge from that," I'd say you're leaving no room for compromise.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

That's not my argument.

I'm only pointing out that while you and lupis and Tormund can wax philosophical about how stupid it was to use these weapons, given the range and accuracy, these were, clearly, not the factors that these killers considered. Or if they did, they opted for these inferior weapons (for this context) any way.

Sure. The fact that they used those weapons means that they chose them over other options.

So the response from folks on your side of the camp, where you poo-poo the wisdom in banning these assault weapons in an attempt to reduce the casualty rate of massive shootings, seems misplaced.

I am not following the logic here at all. The argument from "my side" is that if you banned assault weapons in an effort to reduce the casualty rates of massive shootings, the shooters would use other weapons that are, in fact rather than public perception, no less efficient/effective in that situation. Perhaps even more so. So what have you gained with your ban? It looks to me like the classic example of doing something that makes you feel better for having done it, even if it really is of no positive value.

[Guest RK Unsmoteable]

...to talk about them as politicians are, as though they are in some way mechanically different is factually wrong.

I honestly think that all gun rights advocates might end up much better off if the proposed assault weapons ban was passed. I am nearly positive it would be struck down by the Court and the facts would just be so bad that you'd be very likely to get a decision you would be really, really happy with out of it. I mean, it's not at all likely that any other gun control bill with restrictions that are so completely and manifestly unrelated to any actual reasonable policy goal will ever be considered again.

I mean, whose lawyer would you rather be - the person trying to show that gay marriage actually causes some kind of documentable societal harm, or the guy who has to try and show that banning thumbhole stocks reduces the number of violent crimes committed with firearms? Even though there are records of court transcripts, etc. showing what a non-starter option 1 is as an evidentiary matter, I still think the other guy would have a harder time of it.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I've thought of a better way to ask a question I've asked you before: If I had rarely to never shot any kind of firearm before and up and decide I'm going on a murderous rampage, am I going to shoot more people with a semi-auto handgun or an AR-15?

I'd say the semi-auto handgun, though there is a lot of variation within that group. It's generally easier to handle, doesn't require as sophisticated a sight-picture, and you don't lose your peripheral vision when sighting in. If you chose to fire from the hip or whatever, then you're giving up most of its advantages. The truly significant disadvantage of a handgun is accuracy, but within the distances at which most of these shootings occur, that's a non-factor.

Also, the semi-auto is much easier/cheaper to obtain, as well as easier to carry/conceal, so it would be easier to bring multiple weapons.

Reloading is also a bit easier/faster, though that difference dimishes with greater familiarity.

That is WHY you can't just ban whatever weapons that type of killer likes to use and watch the number of incidents go down - they'll just get whatever it is they can get that they think is the coolest. There's no ending it that way.

Exactly. If someone really believes that shooters choose their weapons based on what is the "coolest", then knocking off the "most cool" weapons just moves everything else one run up the "cool" ladder.

[Guest RK Unsmoteable]

But mere opposition isn't a position. Now if you said, "My position is that no drones should ever be used for anything, ever, and I will not budge from that," I'd say you're leaving no room for compromise.

Oh. My bad - it was actually me who was not really understanding what you were saying. Fair enough, I can absolutely state my position on privacy rights and the restrictions it should place on search and seizure law, with specificity. And I guess stating that position seems to inherently includes some kind of position on what search actions I would presumably be okay with, yeah? Is that what you mean?

I can definitely see how that works - take the recent Supreme Court case, Jardines, for example. I personally think the use of anything "specialized," whether it's technological, an animal, or even a human with specialized training in some cases, makes the observation of your private residence a search. So, apparently I also think that observations made with the usual human five senses in the same way that people typically observe things in the environment on a daily basis is not a search, and I'm implicitly okay with that. (And I have more to say on that issue, but I'll take it to the hell freezes over in DC thread that's about that decision).

Anyway, that last sentence is the kind of thing that you just never hear out of the gun rights crowd - that's what I understand you to be saying. Am I getting that right? If so, I think the really important thing to ask is whether they're really stonewalling in the way that you say, or if there's just no valid analogy to my example and being against something on the issue of Second Amendment rights just doesn't implicitly entail being okay with something else.

I'm going to have to think that one over.

[Guest RK Unsmoteable]

It's generally easier to handle...

I understand everything else you mentioned, but this one I'm not so sure about. First, what caliber of handgun are we talking about here? I'm absolutely confident in even my own ability to hit something at a relatively close range like in a self-defense scenario with a .22 caliber handgun, but I kinda suck at managing the kick and/or recoil of a .38 and I'm helpless with a .45.

Also, the semi-auto is much easier/cheaper to obtain, as well as easier to carry/conceal, so it would be easier to bring multiple weapons.

This I'm just not that concerned about. While it should be a factor, it does not really seem to actually be one in these mass shooting scenarios.

If someone really believes that shooters choose their weapons based on what is the "coolest", then knocking off the "most cool" weapons just moves everything else one run up the "cool" ladder.

Right. It's not like you could outlaw Kate Spade and effectively prevent women from buying $400 handbags.