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

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Here's an article on some things Obama is doing on gun control via executive order.

...The move, and several more like it, is aimed at strengthening the quality and quantity of records contained within the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), according to a DOJ spokeswoman. For years, federal law enforcement officials and gun control advocates have complained that the NICS gun records are not complete, making it easier for people with criminal records and mental illnesses to buy guns.

A key factor in strengthening the NICS database, they say, is getting states to report more information on mental health and criminal history records. Earlier this month, the DOJ announced a $20 million grant program aimed at incentivizing states to submit more mental health and criminal history information into the NICS database.

Also this month, the White House Office of Management and Budget said it would consider changing rules to make it easier for states to share mental health records with the NICS. Through these moves, Glaze said the administration has addressed two of the main reasons for incomplete trace data: a lack of money and privacy concerns.

“By taking direct aim at the two biggest problems inhibiting the database they are taking a significant chunk out of 50 percent of the system’s weaknesses,” said Glaze.

http://thehill.com/h...control-forward

Now, here's where it gets interesting. From the LaPierre/Bloomberg debate:

LaPierre said the NRA supports a bill to get the records of those adjudicated mentally incompetent and dangerous into the background check system for gun dealers, better enforcement of federal gun laws and beefed up penalties for illegal third-party purchases and gun trafficking. Shortly after the Newtown shooting, LaPierre called for armed security guards in schools as well.

LaPierre would like to see Congress pass a law that "updates the system and targets those mentally incompetent adjudicated into the system" and forces the administration to enforce the federal gun laws. "It won't happen until the national media gets on the administration and calls them out for their incredible lack of enforcement of these laws," LaPierre said.

http://abclocal.go.c...tics&id=9039907

That's been the NRA's position for a long time, btw.

So these are government actions, that the NRA has long advocated, that will take "a significant chunk out of 50% of the system's weaknesses". Yet, the Administration (deliberately) and others (in ignorance) keep claiming that the NRA opposes all actions to reduce gun violence.

[Guest RK Unsmoteable]

Yet, the Administration (deliberately) and others (in ignorance) keep claiming that the NRA opposes all actions to reduce gun violence.

Well yeah. It's not exactly like they're coughing up a bunch of campaign dollars for Democrats for the mid-term elections or anything, right? So if you just start with the proposition that you have to make the NRA look bad, what other angle could you take that would be more effective? I think the obstructionist approach is pretty much the best option if you're trying to influence the perceptions of someone who doesn't already have a solidified opinion of the NRA, and it reaffirms the primary party narrative - that Republicans just say no to everything and are refusing to govern.

And despite your example, it shows more integrity than most of the other options. It's not like they're running ads splicing up images of bullet-ridden 8 year olds with the NRA logo, right?

As to why people just uncritically buy whatever the administration is selling, don't ask me. I've been hounding Shryke to explain to me how that all works in the US Politics thread for weeks now, but no dice so far. They definitely choose their messages carefully, and with a very deliberate eye to the type of psychological research that marketing has been utilizing for decades now, but still.

For my part, if the answer to "does the person saying this have anything to gain from people believing that what they are saying is true" is yes, then that information is suspect on its face.

[lupis42]

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.

But we do get called 'uncompromising' or 'obstructionist' or 'absolutist' or whatever when we say that we don't want any of the things the other side is selling - and when we propose solutions to the problems posed that don't involve restricting ownership/availability of guns, it's 'laughable'.

As far as I can tell, one side views availability of guns as a bad thing and 'violent crime' as a consequence of that - therefore, to them, doing anything about violent crime is, at best, treating the symptoms and ignoring the disease, and probably to some (less charitable interpretation here) counterproductive, insofar as it reduces the imperative to get to what they really want.

(Which is why some of the more snarkily inclined on the pro-gun side have bumper stickers like "Gun control is what you do instead of something")

The other side, (my side) views 'violent crime' as the bad thing, and views availability of guns as either orthagonal to that, or as a good thing. There's not a whole lot of middle ground that's going to appeal to both sides.

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.

Quite possibly - though it'd certainly not be my favorite strategy, it would hopefully mitigate the the aformentioned tendency to go "We must do something, therfore new assualt weapons ban!".

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

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.

I had the rather unique experience of running what were referred to as "Jane Wayne" exercises, where the wives/girlfriends of students came in for a morning or afternoon of shooting weapons. Probably ran about 600 women through that total. They got to fire M-16A-2's, 9mm's, and even some LMG's. It was much, much easier to teach field expedient shooting with a pistol than with a rifle. Part of that is due to arm length, etc., being different for women than men.

But look, if we're talking about Newtown (and it makes me ill to think in this kind of detail about that), then a .45 is not nearly the most efficient weapon. A .22 auto would give you plenty of power, and lots of rounds in a small semi-auto pistol. And in any case, it seems that these mass shooters are overwhelming male anyway, so the recoil of a .38, 357, .32, .25, 10mm, or whatever isn't going to matter as much.

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.

I'm not following your point here. You asked me which weapon you could shoot more people with if you'd rarely shot a weapon before, which is a different question from what shooters actually use. Shooters may not necessarily pick the weapons that is objectively the most efficient.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Well yeah. It's not exactly like they're coughing up a bunch of campaign dollars for Democrats for the mid-term elections or anything, right? So if you just start with the proposition that you have to make the NRA look bad, what other angle could you take that would be more effective?

Exactly.

But we do get called 'uncompromising' or 'obstructionist' or 'absolutist' or whatever when we say that we don't want any of the things the other side is selling - and when we propose solutions to the problems posed that don't involve restricting ownership/availability of guns, it's 'laughable'.

That's why I pointed out that the NRA actually supports what the Administration itself says would go a long way towards plugging holes in the system. Yet, the narrative the Administration is pushing for politcal reasons is that the NRA opposes anything constructive, and then has the nerve to accuse the NRA of refusing to discuss the issue in good faith. It's absolutely maddening to those of us who follow this stuff.

Honestly, the NRA for years has pushed for better intergration of criminal and mental health records for NCIS.

[lupis42]

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.

I think there's a major legitimate criticism of us gun rights folk in there, though, which is that we spend a lot more time talking about what we oppose and why than we do laying out any attempt to explain what we belive are the core issues, how they relate, etc.

I think Tormund and I took a crack at that in a much earlier incarnation of this thread, but I'm happy to give it another shot if Jon's so inclined.

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.

Full size, or compact/lightweight?

[Kouran]

Full size, or compact/lightweight?

Full size 45 ACP

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Full size 45 ACP

That's a tough weapon for a lot of women to handle, if just for the size of the grip alone. I suppose it's fair to note that comfort/grip/ease of control, etc. vary between people in general, and not just based on gender.

[lupis42]

Full size 45 ACP

.45's a respectable kick.

I ask because I had a friend who went for years thinking he wouldn't like anything over .38, because he'd only shot a .22 and .38 airweight - I put a full size 1911 in his hands and he loved it.

Do you have a Berretta 92 or a CZ 75 variant available?

[Guest RK Unsmoteable]

It was much, much easier to teach field expedient shooting with a pistol than with a rifle. Part of that is due to arm length, etc., being different for women than men.

The arm length thing you mention is a big thing. Granted, I have really short arms - on a level where I can make self-referential T-Rex jokes and impressions and people actually think it's funny once in awhile - but I just don't even bother with shooting rifles because it's just too uncomfortable. So, for the sake of accuracy, when discussing which type of weapon an inexperienced person could shoot more people with, we probably shouldn't consider female shooters using rifles sized for men.

Let's focus on which would be easier for a inexperienced man to handle instead, because in my personal experience the whole arm length problem you encounter as a female trying to learn how to shoot a rifle is a pretty significant variable.

A .22 auto would give you plenty of power, and lots of rounds in a small semi-auto pistol. And in any case, it seems that these mass shooters are overwhelming male anyway, so the recoil of a .38, 357, .32, .25, 10mm, or whatever isn't going to matter as much.

Fair enough - if I just picture someone standing in a room trying to hit as many targets as possible at very close range, it is not hard to understand that it's just going to be easier to go with the .22 handgun, just because there is less weapon to handle. But if I picture Klebold and Harris trying to pick off people from across the cafeteria or running off into the library, or Holmes shooting across the theater, I think we have a different situation, no? So I guess I phrased the question poorly. Let's use a distance of, what, 40 feet?

You asked me which weapon you could shoot more people with if you'd rarely shot a weapon before

Right, so I'll put it another way - practical issues of transporting the weapon is, as well as hypotheticals with more than one weapon, are outside of the scope of question.

Yet, the narrative the Administration is pushing for politcal reasons is that the NRA opposes anything constructive, and then has the nerve to accuse the NRA of refusing to discuss the issue in good faith. It's absolutely maddening to those of us who follow this stuff.

Yes. We commonly refer to the spread of this phenomena as "reporting the news."

Full size 45 ACP

Call me crazy, but isn't my Dad's .45 a revolver?

[lupis42]

The arm length thing you mention is a big thing. Granted, I have really short arms - on a level where I can make self-referential T-Rex jokes and impressions and people actually think it's funny once in awhile - but I just don't even bother with shooting rifles because it's just too uncomfortable. So, for the sake of accuracy, when discussing which type of weapon an inexperienced person could shoot more people with, we probably shouldn't consider female shooters using rifles sized for men.

Within some limits, the issues from short arms can be fixed (or at least mitigated) with some changes in body position, but this is exactly why it pisses me off that I can't just go buy an AR with a collapsible stock. Students come in all sizes, it would be nice if I didn't need to own 3 copies of the same goddamn rifle with three different lengths of pull!

Call me crazy, but isn't my Dad's .45 a revolver?

Smith model 25/625?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

But if I picture Klebold and Harris trying to pick off people from across the cafeteria or running off into the library, or Holmes shooting across the theater, I think we have a different situation, no? So I guess I phrased the question poorly. Let's use a distance of, what, 40 feet?

I think 40 feet is probably over what the average school shooter is shooting, but It is going to vary depending on the situation. If people are running and trying to get away, it's going to be just as easy (or easier) to traverse with a pistol, and you're not going to be lining up sights at moving targets 40 feet away anyway. And if people aren't running, then you're going to be moving closer. But I'd say you could put together any number of variables depending on the situation, and come up assault weapons being the better or worse option, with them becomeing better the longer the range. If we're looking at Newtown specifically, which is what started the current push for more laws, then I'd say pistols are the better option.

Right, so I'll put it another way - practical issues of transporting the weapon is, as well as hypotheticals with more than one weapon, are outside of the scope of question.

If you're going to ignore things like transportability, concealability, ease of carrying multiple weapons, reloading, etc.., then I'd probably go with the assault weapon for magazine size. But I think those restrictions make it not a realistic or useful comparison.

[Guest RK Unsmoteable]

I think there's a major legitimate criticism of us gun rights folk in there, though, which is that we spend a lot more time talking about what we oppose and why than we do laying out any attempt to explain what we belive are the core issues, how they relate, etc.

I think more than that is required, honestly. By analogy, I'm against banning abortion. My idea of good abortion policy would focus on reducing the number of people who want abortions through better and easier access to birth control and incentives to use IUDs and develop a better Depo Provera, incentivize or force integration of abortion providers into regular Ob-Gyn offices to move away from the "abortion clinic" model, and limit the period of availability for non-health related abortions to somewhere around 19 weeks or earlier. Note how different most of the focus there is from what the anti-abortion crowd pushes? I imagine it would be similar with firearms policy, but instead the only policy we talk about is the one where we just create additional limitations on access to firearms, because that's all the other side talks about and all the gun rights crowd does is respond.

I think 40 feet is probably over what the average school shooter is shooting, but It is going to vary depending on the situation. If people are running and trying to get away, it's going to be just as easy (or easier) to traverse with a pistol, and you're not going to be lining up sights at moving targets 40 feet away anyway. And if people aren't running, then you're going to be moving closer. But I'd say you could put together any number of variables depending on the situation, and come up assault weapons being the better or worse option, with them becomeing better the longer the range. If we're looking at Newtown specifically, which is what started the current push for more laws, then I'd say pistols are the better option.

Are we still thinking about an inexperienced shooter in this paragraph?

If you're going to ignore things like transportability, concealability, ease of carrying multiple weapons, reloading, etc.., then I'd probably go with the assault weapon for magazine size. But I think those restrictions make it not a realistic or useful comparison.

Make it an unrealistic or not useful comparison for what? I'm just trying to get a fix on whether or not there are any other reasons for shooting spree killers to like modern sporting rifles in particular besides the way they look and the ammo capacity.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

If you're going to ignore things like transportability, concealability, ease of carrying multiple weapons, reloading, etc.., then I'd probably go with the assault weapon for magazine size. But I think those restrictions make it not a realistic or useful comparison.

You can get just a large a magazine for a Glock 19 as you can for an AR-15

[Kouran]

That's a tough weapon for a lot of women to handle, if just for the size of the grip alone. I suppose it's fair to note that comfort/grip/ease of control, etc. vary between people in general, and not just based on gender.

Opps I fail at reading comprehension, Raidne was talking about her dad's 45 not the one I set aside for her.

.45's a respectable kick.

I ask because I had a friend who went for years thinking he wouldn't like anything over .38, because he'd only shot a .22 and .38 airweight - I put a full size 1911 in his hands and he loved it.

Do you have a Berretta 92 or a CZ 75 variant available?

Nope no Berretta or a CZ, I dont have many pistols and the .45 ACP 1911 is the smallest, though technically the Webbley is the same caliber.

The arm length thing you mention is a big thing. Granted, I have really short arms - on a level where I can make self-referential T-Rex jokes and impressions and people actually think it's funny once in awhile - but I just don't even bother with shooting rifles because it's just too uncomfortable. So, for the sake of accuracy, when discussing which type of weapon an inexperienced person could shoot more people with, we probably shouldn't consider female shooters using rifles sized for men.

Call me crazy, but isn't my Dad's .45 a revolver?

Yeah sorry mia culpa your dad's is a .45 revolver. I would love to see you shoot the .41 mag Blackhawk though. ;)

The telescoping stock should fix part of that problem with arm length, I will have to setup a quick position for you on the stock.

[lupis42]

I think more than that is required, honestly. By analogy, I'm against banning abortion. My idea of good abortion policy would focus on reducing the number of people who want abortions through better and easier access to birth control and incentives to use IUDs and develop a better Depo Provera, incentivize or force integration of abortion providers into regular Ob-Gyn offices to move away from the "abortion clinic" model, and limit the period of availability for non-health related abortions to somewhere around 19 weeks or earlier. Note how different most of the focus there is from what the anti-abortion crowd pushes? I imagine it would be similar with firearms policy, but instead the only policy we talk about is the one where we just create additional limitations on access to firearms, because that's all the other side talks about and all the gun rights crowd does is respond.

To be fair, the reason there was a mental health thread after Newton was that we kept bringing it up - and given the nature of internet debate, I can totally understand why the mods find life easier if those two things are kept in seperate threads, just like the tool/weapond law thread that spun out of the seatbelts thread, etc, etc, but it does mean that, as far as this thread is concerned, we're going to be the obstructionists. Where it's more annoying, (though probably par for the course) is that the same basic thing happens in the larger media: when the NRA says "gun control won't work", they're refusing to budge, but when they say "armed guards in schools" or "better mental healthcare" or "less glorification of violence in media", they're derailing.

[lupis42]

Opps I fail at reading comprehension, Raidne was talking about her dad's 45 not the one I set aside for her.

Ahh - assuming that's something in the vein of an SAA, the 1911's recoil will probably be deemed comfy by comparison.

Nope no Berretta or a CZ, I dont have many pistols and the .45 ACP 1911 is the smallest, though technically the Webbley is the same caliber.

I'm curious to hear how it goes - if it turns out to still be a bit much, the Beretta is definitely worth looking into, as it's the same weight as a 1911, and somewhere around half the bullet mass, meaning much less felt recoil.

[Jon Sprunk]

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 think so, although tbh sometimes you post in a manner than I cannot totally follow. lol.

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).

I think I'm following you so far...

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?

Well, I wouldn't say never, but for the purposes of a "never budge an inch" argument, yes. If every policy/bill dealing with gun violence is automatically perceived as a "restriction" and therefore must be fought tooth-and-nail on general purposes, then I don't see that as beneficial to society at large. But not everyone takes that approach. FLoW, for example, proposed trigger locks. I think he's also stated that he supports universal checks as long as the information is not stored nor accessed by the feds. (FLOW, correct me if I got that wrong.)

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.

Okay, I invite our gun-rights proponents to answer that if they wish.

[Jon Sprunk]

But we do get called 'uncompromising' or 'obstructionist' or 'absolutist' or whatever when we say that we don't want any of the things the other side is selling - and when we propose solutions to the problems posed that don't involve restricting ownership/availability of guns, it's 'laughable'.

I think there's enough hypocrisy on both sides to go around. And both sides paint the other with a pretty broad brush.

And I don't think it helped the gun-rights side when, after Sandy Hook, the NRA announced it was going to come forward with some solutions. People started wondering aloud if the NRA was going back universal checks (which I think they used to endorse?) and magazine limits, maybe a push for "smart guns." Then they announce . . . . their grand solution is more people with guns in schools. There was a national forehead-slapping moment as 250 million people muttered, "Doh!"*

*yes, major hyperbole. Sue me.

But not all solutions put forward in these threads have been laughable.

As far as I can tell, one side views availability of guns as a bad thing™ and 'violent crime' as a consequence of that - therefore, to them, doing anything about violent crime is, at best, treating the symptoms and ignoring the disease, and probably to some (less charitable interpretation here) counterproductive, insofar as it reduces the imperative to get to what they really want.

Possibly, but you aren't characterizing my argument. Crime is not dependent on the availability of guns. However, the scope and lethality of crimes are definitely affected by the availability of guns. I, for one, would not care one lick if we had even more guns in this country IF they were hardly ever used in crimes. However, since so many deranged and criminal minds seem willing to utilize the effectness of the modern firearm, we have a problem, because they are everywhere. I might, if I was being "less than charitiable," suggest the gun manufacturers and their adherents have engineered this reality, hoping that the sheer number of firearms in private hands would make any means of regulating them ineffectual, but it could also just be an unfortunate circumstance.

The other side, (my side) views 'violent crime' as the bad thing™, ...

I think you're a little off-base, suggesting only your side starts from a point of "violent crime is the bad thing." If gun violence was not a factor, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

. . .and views availability of guns as either orthagonal to that, or as a good thing™.

I understand the thinking here. I don't 100% agree. I think some people are safer when they are armed, and a lot of people are less safe when they are armed.

There's not a whole lot of middle ground that's going to appeal to both sides.

That depends. If we view it as a war that one side is eventually going to "win" and other must "lose," then yes. Probably not a lot of middle ground. But if we see it as a mutual problem -- because gun violence can strike anyone, anywhere -- then maybe we can address the real issues.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Then they announce . . . . their grand solution is more people with guns in schools. There was a national forehead-slapping moment as 250 million people muttered, "Doh!"*

*yes, major hyperbole. Sue me.

That's a lot more than just hyperbole. A CBS/NYT poll in early January showed that 74% believe guards in schools would reduce the risk of school shootings. The Newtown school board and city itself have both voted to put at least one armed guard in every school.

The only "doh" may have been from folks wishing it had been done earlier.

And, I'd point out that even many proponents of other gun control measures being discussed wil admit those measures wouldn't have stopped that horrible shoring even if they'd been in place.