Gun Control

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

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby leady » Wed Aug 22, 2012 11:40 am UTC

Whichever side of the fence you sit, the primary use and primary value of a gun is deterence, whether thats in a home, purse or in a military or police stockpile.

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:09 pm UTC

leady wrote:Whichever side of the fence you sit, the primary use and primary value of a gun is deterence, whether thats in a home, purse or in a military or police stockpile.


Or, yknow, recreation.

Realistically, I may use a gun defensively what, perhaps once in my life? If I'm fairly unlucky? But I go target shooting on a semi-regular basis.

I also do archery, wholly for entertainment. I am under no illusions that at any time I'll need to use a bow and arrow to actually kill anything, ever. But, yknow, it's fun. I don't deny that deterrence is a factor, but I don't agree that all people would see it as the most major one.

morriswalters wrote:I don't reject it, any more than I can reject a virus. It's impossible. But I do reject the myth that a gun has any prevalent uses other than killing. And sports shooting is only a form of practice for the real thing.


Yes, all our trap and skeet shooting is preparation for killing three inch long UFOs. :roll: And cowboy action shoots are clearly preparation for the return of undead Billy the Kid.

morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:First, there's indications the the native americans were in fact doing just fine on the buffalo before we got there to introduce them to firearms. They were recovering from a bust cycle in population levels, so the growing population boom would have hit them pretty hard guns or not. The guns certainly contributed, but lots of people wanting to eat/use buffalo was really the root cause, not the gun. Hell, you could at least as easily blame the horse. The proliferation of horses throughout N america changed lifestyles at least as much as the gun. Increased mobility has huge implications for hunter/gatherer lifestyles.
's kind of what we do. Therefore, fixating on the "it was originally designed for this" is pretty irrelevant compared to discussing actual, modern uses of it.
Well that's interesting. I see it. They just walked up and stabbed them then, right? Why they were killed is not important, it's the means.


Sometimes, yes, with spears. Of course, in ranged weapons, they also had the bow and arrow. Note that as a weapon for mass killing, the firearm wasn't strictly superior when it was introduced to the native americans. Muzzle loaders had more oomph and such than the bow and arrows they used, but accuracy still was a gravely limiting factor for range, and bow and arrow had a much faster firing speed. It's not nearly as large a factor as you assume.

morriswalters wrote:The use of gunpowder is what makes the gun possible, no other mechanism that can be hand carried is as efficient, neither springs nor compressed air. The 15 inch guns on the larger battleships could send a projectile in a ballistic trajectory of over twenty miles. The Germans developed cannons that could shoot even further. Black powder was replaced with smokeless powder to protect the shooter and various improvements to the mechanisms came about to increase the rate of fire and the accuracy. Large parts of the work derived from development at military arsenals and for military pieces. Hell an aspiring military devised a cannon that could fire nukes. Go Army. Try doing that with a bow and arrow.


I'm glad to learn that the paintball gun is impossible.

Other mechanisms may be less desirable in most situations, yes. This is far from making other mechanisms impossible, though. You're overreaching. And yes, much of their development came from military purposes. The same can be said for kind of a lot of things. Like, say, roads.

Patrik3 wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I grew up on a blueberry farm.


Wow, that sounds so cute. Aside from the bears.
I'm not sure how UK farmers get by. I think we just have a lot fewer 'big' problems... more just moles and weeds and viruses, probably...

The majority of guns have not killed anyone, ever.


Really? Do you mean the majority of peacetime guns? What about all the wars since 1500s?
Also, I'm even dubious about peacetime guns. Or at least, gun users. Maybe each gun hobbyist owns a collection of 15 guns, and that makes up the discrepancy, but I do find it hard to believe that the majority of gun users have no intention of using their weapon to threaten or harm - in offense or defense - another human. Further, depending on whether you're an animal rights activist or not, shooting game and vermin could be considered kinda destructive. Even if it's constructive (the farmer needs to be rid of the vermin, and the game provide amusement and food) it's still killing - although, I note that you were careful to put anyone, as opposed to anything.


Let's restrict it to guns under civilian ownership. A mini-gun in a warthog is probably going to kill someone. The target rifle your neighbor owns...not so much.

I would also point out that even the most rapidly hostile gun hobbyist couldn't possibly need 15 firearms to "threaten or harm". I have yet to see a fifteen armed man wielding all his guns at once. More likely, such an individual is some kind of collector, or someone who engages in many different types of shooting sports. Shooting vermin is something I'd consider qualitatively different from killing people. I imagine most people would. Sure, you've got a few edge cases who consider them equivalent, but that's not the average viewpoint.

Melting lead doesn't require a foundry of any sort, just a mold, some lead, and a heat source.

Really? - Wiki'd it. 327*C... Wow. I'm gonna go play with molten lead now! Do the bullets ever deform in the barrel?


Huh. I just realized that 3d printers that work at that temperature are pretty readily available. I wonder if anyone's tried feeding rods of lead into 'em.

Bullets can deform, yeah. Most modern tech is for reliability and performance stuff. You wouldn't want a lead-only bullet if you're a match shooter at long ranges, for instance, and high-quality target ammo can be significantly more expensive than, say, military surplus ammo.


Propellant really is basically anything that expands rapidly. You can use a spring. Or compressed air.

Hmm... a spring doesn't strike me as being very efficient in launching bullets, or if it was, you'd need a ratchet to crank it up before each shot. Sounds a bit like a crossbow, and IIRC, crossbows weren't too easy to reload, and therefore probably aren't so useful to wannabe mass-murderers.
Compressed air sounds good, but I've seen airsoft guns - the bullets fly out fast enough to bruise, but they're tiny. To do any real harm, you'd need some powerful compression canister-thingies, I suppose?
And propellant that explodes instead of burns, and is of the right composition so that it reliably goes off... I think you'd need at least a basic technical knowledge to build any homemade weapon that was even half as powerful as any gun.


*shrug*, in my teens, I loaded ball bearings into a paintball gun out of curiosity, and spun the pressure settings all the way up. It wasn't perfect, as I didn't bother to match the ball bearing caliber to the gun, or do any modifications to get a better seal, but it still chucked out larger than half inch steel ball bearings at about 500 fps. I test fired it on a plastic 5 gallon bucket, and the entire thing turned to shards of flying plastic. Never fired it at anything living, but I guarantee it would be more dangerous than a bruise, and it required no real technical expertise to make.

IIRC, spring/air powered rifles have seen some specialist sniper use due to noise considerations. They're not especially common because of the trade-offs, but they have existed.

Exploding instead of burning is, at that speed, merely a matter of degree. Any expertise involved is in synthesis and stabilization of the explosive. If you can do that, turning it into a gun is trivial.


Currently, the slide on a weapon slamming shut effectively has that status. A shotgun's is particularly loud and distinctive. So, in a way, this already exists.


But what about having an artificial sound for another type of gun... one with slightly less killing power?


Well, it would initially not be recognized. And being recognized as "the less dangerous gun" would probably not do it's reputation, and thus, intimidation factor, any favors. People are dissuaded by guns BECAUSE they're dangerous. Non lethal weapons are of lower deterrence value.

Chance of death is determined mostly by shot placement.


Ok, now I'm turned off of shotguns again. Why are they popular home defense when you have a chance of leaving the target fairly unscathed but angry, or a chance of completely killing him. Something about the element of luck in the situation... The policy isn't consistent. If home-defense guns are for warning, and to incapacitate, then OK. If they're to kill the intruder on sight, then... less OK, but still consistent. This shotgun thing seems to say "we can't decide whether intruders should be killed or just incapacitated, and we're just gonna let luck decide it for us".


That's how all guns work. They're not magical death rays. If you miss the shot, or only score a marginal hit...well, that's not gonna do much. Type of gun is utterly irrelevant to that fact. What gun you pick matters a hell of a lot less than being skillfull with it.

Yeah, I think I remember all of that about stopped bullets imparting all their energy (which is obvious anyway) but I still recall something else about bullets that fully penetrate being less dangerous. I think it was that if it goes through completely, it's not stuck in your organs causing you problems later, but that also means that it's left more of a hole straight through you, which seems pretty dangerous too, so I dunno.


Oh, if you get to a hospital with a bullet in you, the odds of survival are actually pretty far in your favor. Bullet removal is something doctors are pretty good at here in the US. I wouldn't worry overmuch about that...taking any bullet wound is inherently unhealthy, but medical care has come a long, long way. This used to be a factor historically, before modern anti-infection practices were a thing, though.

Would a round made of tiny shot, pre-doused in a fast acting anesthetic be a good idea? The shot would cause pain and rupture the skin (but probably not get as far as vital organs), and the anesthetic would cause the muscles to relax, paralyzing the intruder (whilst also blocking the pain after a few seconds so it's a little more humane, too!).


This is again a strictly hollywood thing. Anesthetic does not work like that. Even tranq guns that DO exist with the most fast acting tranqs in it can take minutes to put the target down. This has obvious problems for self defense. Even these tranq guns are avoided pretty heavily because anesthetic is highly dangerous. The amount of anesthetic required to put down a 250 lb person is very different from that for a 200 lb person. Getting it wrong means either they don't fall asleep, or they never wake up. Even when used by zoos, in carefully measured doses for the right weight, there is a notable chance of death.

In short, there's a reason that in surgery, there is a specially trained, highly paid individual who exists for no other reason but to handle anesthesia.

Rate of fire is not highly correlated to effectiveness at killing people.


I'm guessing this is because they're notably less accurate, or something? What if you're on a killing spree and you're waving it around into a crowd?


Yup. Automatic weapons have a strong, strong tendancy to point themselves at the sky. Accuracy goes down remarkably, and you generally burn through ammo rapidly with relatively little effect. It's a reasonable assumption that using a fully automatic weapon, even against a crowd, would not be an ideal choice.

That said, a legal fully automatic weapon has NEVER been used in the US for a killing spree. So, actual statistics don't exist...but are probably unimportant. It's just never happened, so it's not really that big of a worry.

slinging your shotgun over your shoulder while shopping in the mall would attract a lot of attention right quick.


Mm, I guess. But then, how did the Batman killer manage to transport a bulk of weaponry from his house to his car, drive said car all the way to the cinema, unload the weaponry, gear up, and then walk all the way around the cinema before bursting in, all without getting stopped by anyone?


Good question. The loading the car is no big thing. Nor is the driving. Unless you get stopped(unlikely, and pretty random), not gonna happen. Why he wasn't noticed at the cinema/how he got in the exit door has been a subject of much theorizing, and I'm not sure it's been definitively answered.

Our TSA is subject to pretty notable levels of disapproval and dislike.


Yeah, alright, I walked into that one a bit. Although, Airport Security is more of a deterrent to terrorists - maybe the fact that no terrorist has been caught passing security is testament to the effectiveness of the deterrent?

But to my point, I was just trying to think of a law which is tedious, yet worthwhile. I failed on the specific example, but I'm sure there are many other laws out there which are boring yet essential.


Nah. You get the same effect with the classic "tiger repelling rock". See? No tigers. It works. Realistically, most people just don't wanna be terrorists.

There are probably examples, but in general, making life obnoxious for large chunks of the population should be something that laws should try to avoid.

incapacitating someone without killing them is not a very easy problem.


Then, maybe finding the solution to that problem would reduce the need for defense firearms and solve some of the gun problem? I'm sure a lot of money is being put into that research already, but it's just a thought.


Giant truckloads of money, mostly by the DoD. That said, I'm still not certain that there's a "gun problem". Part of the value of guns is deterrence. Deterrence is less effective for non-lethal weapons, because, to put it bluntly, most people don't want to die.

That's basically the list of reasonable non-lethal options.


It's probably a stupid idea... but would flashbangs work as an escape device? They'd alert other people to the situation, too.
On that note, possibly tear gas's range and splash back danger could be improved by selling it in grenade form?


Not likely. Assailants are likely to be close to you...so trying to affect them would likely affect you too. Inherently, all grenades are mass attack weapons...they're imprecise, and they hit everyone in the area. This is kind of a huge problem for a defensive weapon. Stunning and disorienting everyone else trying to escape so you can get out rubs me wrong...and if this became popular, any self defense situation would rapidly turn into a giant CF. The idea of someone pulling out a gun...then everyone else tossing grenades around strikes me as incredibly bad. Grenades don't work well for most of these situations.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby morriswalters » Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:47 pm UTC

Sure target shooting is fun. I've enjoyed it. But it is what it is. Which is practice of the skill of putting a ballistic projectile on target. I spent some time trying to think of ways that a gun is used other than for lethal purposes other than shooting targets. I get 2, sending lines between ships at sea, and the use of howitzers to control avalanches. There must be more.

Skeet shooting, I wonder what that is practice for?

Accuracy didn't stop hunters from killing thousands at a time. Which they did. When Natives wanted to do quantity they ran them off cliffs. They had to wait until Europeans imported guns and horse to do their killing at the scale of the buffalo hunters.

Patrik3
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:45 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Patrik3 » Wed Aug 22, 2012 3:09 pm UTC

In reply to EdgarJPublius

- Most of the points your made had already been made by Tyndmyr, but the two links on homemade firearms (especially the air rifle) were pretty interesting;

- I get that the ridge between "too lethal" and "not lethal enough" is a pretty thin one, and in home defense it's better to err on the side of "too lethal"... but I'm still a bit freaked out when you say 'the best bullets are ones which can penetrate to the depth of the intruder's vital organs' - is penetrating the skin and exciting the nerves not enough? (I suppose this attitude in itself is a huge deterrent on would-be criminals)

-
The majority of guns have not killed anyone, ever. [+the paragraph about military weapons]


I see that there are vastly more private firearms than military firearms now, but
-what about 200 years ago? I'd have thought that the only private firearms would've been owned by rich landlords used for hunting. Although, of course, the number of military firearms would also have been smaller because of smaller army sizes...
-what about WW1 and 2?
-even if there are more privately owned firearms, how many are used for sport compared to how many used for defense/criminal activity? I know that most defensive firearms probably never get used on anyone, but I was arguing against most firearms having a destructive use, and to me, possessing a firearm for the threat of killing people, and with the intention of doing so, vs. possessing one and actually killing people, isn't really a valid distinction. - most private defense firearms have never killed anyone, but that's just because they've fortunately never needed to.

-
There does seem to be some correlation between being an 'introverted intellectual' and various violent tendencies. But it's not a very useful correlation.

But it would become more useful when you've managed to identify the more 'gregarious' killers, and the 'intellectual' killers are the only group left.
And you also have to deal with the 'false positive' problem where the vast majority of 'intellectual introverts' are not mass murderers at all.

Yeah, agreed.


On the whole, I'll admit, my opinions on gun control have changed rather a lot after discussing the topic. I think this sums up my new stance on the topic:

- In an imperfect society, guns are a good deterrent against potential criminals, although, they carry negative connotations because of their lethal power, which might lead to more social distrust, and crime.

- However, if tighter regulations in UK have really increased gun crime, (and, not that the increased gun crime has lead to tighter regulations - cause and effect), then the question "does introducing gun laws increase or decrease gun crime?" really needs to be studied intensively.

- In the US, where firearms are already fairly abundant, a ban on legal firearms would unquestionably be insane because of the amount of then-illegal firearms floating about.

- I'm personally opposed to the use of firearms because of the lethality; civilian defense should definitely be further researched. Replacing defensive firearms with less lethal defenses would mean 1) criminals have less access to lethal weapons themselves, and 2) without the possibility of being killed, criminals can be brought to a more controlled, and humane, form of justice.
(Some more ideas for civilian defenses) ->
Spoiler:
Flashbangs: Blinds criminal, confuses criminal gangs, allows 'escape' time, and alerts everybody nearby to the scene.
Tear Gas Grenades: More range, less chance of hitting self, spreads over an area to hit more people.
Sleeping Gas Grenades: Even more humane than tear gas, and possibly more effective, too - if the criminal is strong-willed, could he wipe away the tear gas or ignore the pain? Sleeping gas would knock them out completely.
Smoke Grenades: Confuses gangs, allows 'escape' time.
More Bulletproof Vests, or even, Bulletproof Fashion Wear for people attending night clubs in violent parts of town?
Anesthetic Bullets: Less lethal, more humane, paralyses criminals.
Banana Skin: Not a real banana skin, but some way of dropping a trap so that a criminal cannot easily pursue you.


- Other than this, an even more increased awareness of firearms in cities, especially, vigilance for anyone somehow walking around with many firearms...

- Hopefully, someday we could live in a world where almost all terrorists and mass murderers are preempted, and where quality of life is such that crime rates are nonexistent. In this new scenario, would be the opportunity to remove personal firearms completely, (and then restrict sporting firearms to sports venues, since they won't ever be needed in defense). I'm fortunate to live in a suburb where crime is fairly low - (a couple of my friends got mugged once, but by opportunists, not armed thieves) - so it's a great luxury to feel confident that you can walk most of the streets unarmed, without risking a chance of being mugged. However, since some places are obviously not like that at the moment, I realize it's a little childish to think that just removing the legal weapons would suddenly fix this...

EDIT: Tyndmyr just posted before I posted this. So, @Tyndmyr:

es, all our trap and skeet shooting is preparation for killing three inch long UFOs. :roll: And cowboy action shoots are clearly preparation for the return of undead Billy the Kid.


I think what the other guy was getting at is that a lot of sports are either derived from real military pursuits, or have a lot of skills that can be easily transferred to the military. Or both. So, just as a lion cub's play-fighting is 'just a game', it gets a little more sinister when they try and apply it to real life...

*shrug*, in my teens, I loaded ball bearings into a paintball gun out of curiosity, and spun the pressure settings all the way up. It wasn't perfect, as I didn't bother to match the ball bearing caliber to the gun, or do any modifications to get a better seal, but it still chucked out larger than half inch steel ball bearings at about 500 fps. I test fired it on a plastic 5 gallon bucket, and the entire thing turned to shards of flying plastic. Never fired it at anything living, but I guarantee it would be more dangerous than a bruise, and it required no real technical expertise to make.


Holy crap I want one... I never got to do any fun experiments :( just "make a volcano out of vinegar and soda!!!"

This is again a strictly hollywood thing. Anesthetic does not work like that.


Nah, not really, it was more a "my mind thinking of it and not researching whether anesthetic works that way" thing. As in, the misconception was provided more by my own general ignorance than any misguidance from Hollywood, this time. Maybe there's some other drug/poison/electricity/other that can give a quick paralyzing effect? What about snake venom?

Automatic weapons have a strong, strong tendancy to point themselves at the sky.


Yeah, this is something I've wondered about any type of gun - why is the trigger always beneath the barrel? - It wouldn't take a huge amount of engineering to place it behind the barrel, and then you've got a gun with the "anchor point" behind the backwards direction of force. So, there's no moment of recoil from the gun. Or if pulling a trigger behind the barrel feels too awkward, have one handhold below the gun and one above it (or holding it horizontally like a handlebar), so that there's 2 anchor points and the recoil force is delivered to each one equally, so no overall angular kickback.

Nor is the driving. Unless you get stopped(unlikely, and pretty random), not gonna happen.

I'm sure on the documentary they showed a clip of footage of the guy's car driving down the motorway (or freeway or whatever) with a trunk full of weapons. But I think it could've just been a dramatic reconstruction. In any case, yeah, fling a sheet over it and it's easy.
Loading the stuff into the car should be trivial... but, "In Aurora, Holmes lived on Paris Street in a one-bedroom apartment, in a building with other students involved in health studies." - from Wiki. And I think the news showing firemen starting to de-trap the house confirmed it was a communal flat kind of building. So he would have had to have (he'd've'd't've) taken all his weaponry through the building to his car without alerting the suspicions of his fellow housemates, and be able to walk to the car outside without fear of being noticed by passers by.

Nah. You get the same effect with the classic "tiger repelling rock"


Not sure about this one. I'm sure it's partly that and partly that the terrorists have actually been deterred. It's not very easy to conduct a study or questionnaire to determine whether terrorists have been deterred or if they just haven't felt like terrorism any more. " Realistically, most people just don't wanna be terrorists. " Ok, but there's still a portion of people who do. Y'know, like a certain Batman killer person :P and think of all those extremist religious sects!

There are probably examples,


Yeah... I was gonna list 2 cases I thought I'd heard about, but in both, the terrorist was subdued on the plane itself, which doesn't say much for TSA...

BUT ANYWAY as I said, my original point was to highlight another law that is tedious, to illustrate that some laws are boring, yet essential. Again, I've failed in the specific example, but I'm sure you can appreciate that there are lots of other laws out there that are the target of grumbling, yet life might be worse were the laws not there...

That said, I'm still not certain that there's a "gun problem".


I dunno, I think a society which relies on any personal defenses has a bit of a problem. It would be much nicer to live in a neighbourhood where one doesn't have to consider these things. I suppose I've been taking this for granted all my life...

trying to affect them would likely affect you too.


I thought the point of flashbangs was that you pull the ring without telling your opponent, and then, just before it goes off, you turn around and shut your eyes and cover your ears, so that they're looking at it but your senses are not caught.

Assailants are likely to be close to you.


Well, ok, but I thought the main downside to Tasers and tear-gas was their limited range? If the assailant is close, then the range isn't an issue after all.

Stunning and disorienting everyone else trying to escape so you can get out rubs me wrong


Mm, I was envisioning using grenades more for if you're out in the city on your own, and you notice a gang of hoodlums approaching menacingly.
Even in a massacre, or other situation with lots of victims, the crowd is probably going to be escaping in a wide arc, with the grenades thrown towards the assailant at the center/apex of the arc.

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ormurinn » Wed Aug 22, 2012 3:52 pm UTC

Patrik3 wrote:
Automatic weapons have a strong, strong tendancy to point themselves at the sky.


Yeah, this is something I've wondered about any type of gun - why is the trigger always beneath the barrel? - It wouldn't take a huge amount of engineering to place it behind the barrel, and then you've got a gun with the "anchor point" behind the backwards direction of force. So, there's no moment of recoil from the gun. Or if pulling a trigger behind the barrel feels too awkward, have one handhold below the gun and one above it (or holding it horizontally like a handlebar), so that there's 2 anchor points and the recoil force is delivered to each one equally, so no overall angular kickback.


Like this?
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby dshizzle » Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:01 pm UTC

@Patrick3

A couple of technical things that need clarification.

1. Shutting your eyes closing your ears will do absolutely nothing to stop a flash-bang from completely rendering you senseless. Proximity is what matters.
2. The main problem with tasers and tear gas is that they are extremely ineffective at stopping a determined aggressor, unlike multiple lead slugs to center of mass.
3. Throwing a grenade at a group of people who are "approaching menacingly" is assault, unless those people are brandishing weapons or making it verbally clear they intend to harm you.
4. With regard to recoil issues. Automatic fire is not hard to control, you learn to shoot in bursts. Your idea about having one hand on top and one under is not new, its called thumb over bore some tactical schools absolutely love it. The problem with this is that it causes fatigue quicker than the traditional both hands under.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. - Feynman

Patrik3
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:45 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Patrik3 » Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:36 pm UTC

@Ormurinn: Yeah, pretty much. Why aren't they on all weapons? Apart from that they've traditionally been made that way for ages, it seems silly to keep making handguns with the trigger below, apart from for the reason that oyu get lots of funny videos of girls hitting themselves in the face with the gun trying to fire it first time...

dshizzle wrote:@Patrick3

A couple of technical things that need clarification.

1. Shutting your eyes closing your ears will do absolutely nothing to stop a flash-bang from completely rendering you senseless. Proximity is what matters.
2. The main problem with tasers and tear gas is that they are extremely ineffective at stopping a determined aggressor, unlike multiple lead slugs to center of mass.
3. Throwing a grenade at a group of people who are "approaching menacingly" is assault, unless those people are brandishing weapons or making it verbally clear they intend to harm you.
4. With regard to recoil issues. Automatic fire is not hard to control, you learn to shoot in bursts. Your idea about having one hand on top and one under is not new, its called thumb over bore some tactical schools absolutely love it. The problem with this is that it causes fatigue quicker than the traditional both hands under.


1) What about shutting your eyes and turning away? Surely the flash is not so bright that it would reflect back into your eyes when you're turned away? You'd be deaf, but not blind.
2) Yep, got it. Tasers and gas are for smaller threats, lethal force is for serious threats.
3) Oh yeah, didn't think about it like that...
4) Why does it cause fatigue quicker? Fatigue of the user or the gun? I would've thought it would cause less fatigue since you're only having to compensate for the backwards effect of recoil, not the angular effect too. Plus, less of a moment of force means less wrist strength is needed to compensate. Also, with handguns and non-auto weapons, surely having no angular recoil is far more accurate?

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:39 pm UTC

A flashbang is not merely a bright light. It's also concussive. That's where the bang comes from. Being close to the point of origin == receiving concussive force.

That said, I strongly suggest you get some basic familiarity and experience with firearms before suggesting ways to "fix all their problems".

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby dshizzle » Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:50 pm UTC

1) What about shutting your eyes and turning away? Surely the flash is not so bright that it would reflect back into your eyes when you're turned away? You'd be deaf, but not blind.


That would be better than staring right at it, but the fuse on a flashbang is shorter than a grenade, meaning you have about one second to go oh shit thats a BANG.

Personal experience they hurt like shit at close range on top of all that. The noise is so loud you really cant think even with ear plugs in.

4) Why does it cause fatigue quicker? Fatigue of the user or the gun? I would've thought it would cause less fatigue since you're only having to compensate for the backwards effect of recoil, not the angular effect too. Plus, less of a moment of force means less wrist strength is needed to compensate. Also, with handguns and non-auto weapons, surely having no angular recoil is far more accurate?


Well first off forget about a weird top handgrip on a handgun, that would be on the slide which would stop rounds from cycling.

There will always be muzzle climb with any weapon, there are ways to effect it, but its ultimately unavoidable try the wikipedia page.

Now why does it cause fatigue faster? Thumb over bore causes fatigue quicker because you are supplying a torque to the rifle to counteract that muzzle climb, torque requires force, force over time is work, and work comes from energy. Using energy faster = faster fatigue.

That said, I strongly suggest you get some basic familiarity and experience with firearms before suggesting ways to "fix all their problems".


Spot on. And in general, most gun control legislation would be greatly improved if the law-makers took a little time to understand the weapons they were trying to cover.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. - Feynman

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Gun Control

Postby EdgarJPublius » Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:37 pm UTC

Patrik3 wrote:In reply to EdgarJPublius

- Most of the points your made had already been made by Tyndmyr, but the two links on homemade firearms (especially the air rifle) were pretty interesting;

- I get that the ridge between "too lethal" and "not lethal enough" is a pretty thin one, and in home defense it's better to err on the side of "too lethal"... but I'm still a bit freaked out when you say 'the best bullets are ones which can penetrate to the depth of the intruder's vital organs' - is penetrating the skin and exciting the nerves not enough? (I suppose this attitude in itself is a huge deterrent on would-be criminals)


Well, it's partly a deterrent effect. As many others have mentioned, a big part of the deterrent effect of a firearm is that it's lethal.

Another major component though is that it's simply the fastest, most reliable way to end a threat. If some one is pointing a gun at you, or charging you with a knife, you want to end all of that threat. You don't want to end 5% of the threat or 95% of the threat, you want to end 100% of the threat. And you want to end that threat immediately and not five minutes from now, not even five seconds from now.

-
The majority of guns have not killed anyone, ever. [+the paragraph about military weapons]


I see that there are vastly more private firearms than military firearms now, but
-what about 200 years ago? I'd have thought that the only private firearms would've been owned by rich landlords used for hunting. Although, of course, the number of military firearms would also have been smaller because of smaller army sizes...
-what about WW1 and 2?


Well, it's important to realize that the military is necessarily a fraction of the size of the civilian population that supports it, this was no different 200 years ago, or during either of the world wars. At the same time, civilian gun ownership is widespread, and has been basically as long as firearms have been mass produced. The U.S. revolution only worked because a majority of the population had firearms in their home they were familiar with, so a militia could be levied rapidly without the need to arm or train them.

Before the 1900's, gun control wasn't really 'a thing' so civilians everywhere could freely own firearms for protection, participation in a militia, hunting and sport.

-even if there are more privately owned firearms, how many are used for sport compared to how many used for defense/criminal activity? I know that most defensive firearms probably never get used on anyone, but I was arguing against most firearms having a destructive use, and to me, possessing a firearm for the threat of killing people, and with the intention of doing so, vs. possessing one and actually killing people, isn't really a valid distinction. - most private defense firearms have never killed anyone, but that's just because they've fortunately never needed to.


Well, there are 223 million privately owned firearms in the U.S., but only 31 thousand firearm deaths per year. Unless there are three thousand firearms involved in each of those deaths, it's a safe bet that the vast majority of firearms don't end up killing anyone.



Automatic weapons have a strong, strong tendancy to point themselves at the sky.


Yeah, this is something I've wondered about any type of gun - why is the trigger always beneath the barrel? - It wouldn't take a huge amount of engineering to place it behind the barrel, and then you've got a gun with the "anchor point" behind the backwards direction of force. So, there's no moment of recoil from the gun. Or if pulling a trigger behind the barrel feels too awkward, have one handhold below the gun and one above it (or holding it horizontally like a handlebar), so that there's 2 anchor points and the recoil force is delivered to each one equally, so no overall angular kickback.


It's something that's been studied, there are a few different firearm concepts that attempt to address the issue.

One reason that the trigger/hand-grip isn't behind the barrel on more firearms is length. With the trigger below the barrel, the trigger can be in the same length as the barrel, so a firearm with the trigger behind the barrel is longer for a given barrel length.

Nor is the driving. Unless you get stopped(unlikely, and pretty random), not gonna happen.

I'm sure on the documentary they showed a clip of footage of the guy's car driving down the motorway (or freeway or whatever) with a trunk full of weapons. But I think it could've just been a dramatic reconstruction. In any case, yeah, fling a sheet over it and it's easy.
Loading the stuff into the car should be trivial... but, "In Aurora, Holmes lived on Paris Street in a one-bedroom apartment, in a building with other students involved in health studies." - from Wiki. And I think the news showing firemen starting to de-trap the house confirmed it was a communal flat kind of building. So he would have had to have (he'd've'd't've) taken all his weaponry through the building to his car without alerting the suspicions of his fellow housemates, and be able to walk to the car outside without fear of being noticed by passers by.


Well, by far most of the time someone loads their car with some number of firearms, they aren't a mass murderer, but are just going out to the range or to a competition. Add to that, most people just aren't that observant of their surroundings, it's plausible that no one noticed, or cared. If he spread out the loading of the firearms aver a few trips, or loaded it at some time when no one was awake or at home, it further decreases the likelihood that anyone would have noticed, or cared if they had noticed.

Still, people do occasionally call the police about someone loading up a bunch of guns, or carrying one in public or whatever, and pretty much universally those calls turn out to be false alarms, just normal people going about their completely legal business.
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
sam_i_am
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:38 pm UTC
Location: Urbana, Illinois, USA

Re: Gun Control

Postby sam_i_am » Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:42 pm UTC

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

I'm fairly certain gun crimes in cities in Texas are rather low compared to, say, gun crimes in Chicago.



As I think I've posted before in this thread, Most Guns vs. crime studies show no correlation.

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:44 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:Well, by far most of the time someone loads their car with some number of firearms, they aren't a mass murderer, but are just going out to the range or to a competition. Add to that, most people just aren't that observant of their surroundings, it's plausible that no one noticed, or cared. If he spread out the loading of the firearms aver a few trips, or loaded it at some time when no one was awake or at home, it further decreases the likelihood that anyone would have noticed, or cared if they had noticed.

Still, people do occasionally call the police about someone loading up a bunch of guns, or carrying one in public or whatever, and pretty much universally those calls turn out to be false alarms, just normal people going about their completely legal business.


Or he could have just put them in a box. A dude carrying a box out of an apartment building is not unusual in the slightest. Or several boxes, for that matter.

The fact that it'd be a bit culturally weird to pack a bunch of guns into certain places is true, but if someone wants to hide guns...they pretty obviously can.

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby dshizzle » Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:49 pm UTC

For those who dont feel like browsing the thread before posting the points that have been beaten into the ground.

1. There is no well documented statistical correlation between gun ownership and crime. THIS APPLIES TO BOTH PRO GUN RIGHTS AND PRO GUN CONTROL.

2. No legally owned machine gun, .50 cal rifle, or other media frenzy starting weapon has ever been used in a crime in the U.S.

3. You are not smarter or more qualified than the thousands of engineers that work to design guns. If there was a simple fix to resolve some issue we would have it. If I am wrong you should become the Ironman.

4. Gun ownership laws are not uniform across the world, or the U.S. for that matter, do not assume that your laws are the same as everyone elses.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. - Feynman

Arrian
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:15 am UTC
Location: Minnesota

Re: Gun Control

Postby Arrian » Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:56 pm UTC

Patrik3 wrote:-
The majority of guns have not killed anyone, ever. [+the paragraph about military weapons]


I see that there are vastly more private firearms than military firearms now, but
-what about 200 years ago? I'd have thought that the only private firearms would've been owned by rich landlords used for hunting. Although, of course, the number of military firearms would also have been smaller because of smaller army sizes...
-what about WW1 and 2?
-even if there are more privately owned firearms, how many are used for sport compared to how many used for defense/criminal activity? I know that most defensive firearms probably never get used on anyone, but I was arguing against most firearms having a destructive use, and to me, possessing a firearm for the threat of killing people, and with the intention of doing so, vs. possessing one and actually killing people, isn't really a valid distinction. - most private defense firearms have never killed anyone, but that's just because they've fortunately never needed to.


The vast majority of guns on battlefields until mid to late 20th century weren't even used, much less used to kill anyone. There would have been no survivors if more than a tiny fraction of Civil War soldiers actually shot their weapons in the general direction of the enemy, much less aimed. Even in WWII, less than a quarter of the soldiers who actually saw an enemy shot at them. Dave Grossman, who wrote On Killing, emphasizes this point. Here is a short version of what's in the book:

One major modern revelation in the field of military psychology is the observation that such resistance to killing one's own species is also a key factor in human combat. *Brig. Gen. S. L. A. Marshall first observed this during his work as an official U.S. Army historian in the Pacific and European theaters of operations in World War II. Based on his post-combat interviews, Marshall concluded in his book Men Against Fire (1946, 1978) that only 15 to 20 percent of the individual riflemen in World War II fired their own weapons at an exposed enemy soldier. ...

Ardant du Picq's surveys of French officers in the 1860s and his observations about ancient battles (Battle Studies, 1946), John Keegan and Richard Holmes' numerous accounts of ineffectual firing throughout history (Soldiers, 1985), Holmes' assessment of Argentine firing rates in the Falklands War (Acts of War, 1985), Paddy Griffith's data on the extraordinarily low firing rate among Napoleonic and American *Civil War regiments (Battle Tactics of the American Civil War, 1989), the British army's laser reenactments of historical battles, the FBI's studies of nonfiring rates among law enforcement officers in the 1950s and 1960s, and countless other individual and anecdotal observations, all confirm Marshall's fundamental conclusion that human beings are not, by nature, killers. Indeed, from a psychological perspective, the history of warfare can be viewed as a series of successively more effective tactical and mechanical mechanisms to enable or force combatants to overcome their resistance to killing other human beings, even when defined as the enemy.

By 1946, the US Army had accepted Marshall's conclusions, and the Human Resources Research Office of the US Army subsequently pioneered a revolution in combat training, which eventually replaced firing at targets with deeply ingrained conditioning, using realistic, man-shaped pop-up targets that fall when hit. Psychologists assert that this kind of powerful operant conditioning is the only technique that will reliably influence the primitive, midbrain processing of a frightened human being. ...

(Emphasis mine.)

In other words, we are not like Hollywood protrays, we are very, very loathe to kill others of our species. A small percentage of people are sociopathic enough to kill without major conditioning, but the vast majority aren't. That's why disease and crew served weapons like artillery have always been the main killers in wars.

That's the reason non-lethal weapons are dangerously ineffective for self defense: If a person is willing to attack you when you're brandishing a weapon, they're likely one of the few who are willing to seriously harm or kill you even if you harm them in the process. You need something that will stop people like that, make it physically impossible for them to harm you, not hurt them because they're likely past the point where you can dissuade them.

webzter_again
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 4:37 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby webzter_again » Wed Aug 22, 2012 8:03 pm UTC

Arrian wrote:The vast majority of guns on battlefields until mid to late 20th century weren't even used, much less used to kill anyone. There would have been no survivors if more than a tiny fraction of Civil War soldiers actually shot their weapons in the general direction of the enemy, much less aimed. Even in WWII, less than a quarter of the soldiers who actually saw an enemy shot at them.


Upon landing ashore on some pacific island during WWII, the first thing my grandpa did was bury his grenades because "those things could hurt someone"

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby dshizzle » Wed Aug 22, 2012 8:09 pm UTC

Upon landing ashore on some pacific island during WWII, the first thing my grandpa did was bury his grenades because "those things could hurt someone"


All of my what right now. :shock:
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. - Feynman

Patrik3
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:45 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Patrik3 » Wed Aug 22, 2012 11:53 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:That said, I strongly suggest you get some basic familiarity and experience with firearms before suggesting ways to "fix all their problems".


Well, crap. No need to get short with me. I thought we were having some friendly discussion. Sure, there were a couple times when I went outside what seems strictly allowed in SB, but that's just me.

Also, I never suggested I could "fix all their problems". I know myself that I don't have enough technical knowledge. I have more knowledge now than I did when I first started posting in this thread, though.

Anyway, I found it a really interesting discussion until now, but I'm gonna stop here if it annoys you.

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby dshizzle » Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:03 pm UTC

I have more knowledge now than I did when I first started posting in this thread, though.


Then the whole thread was a great success! Keep posting dude your not bothering anyone, us gun people can just get a little annoyed when people without firearms experience think they have everything figured out.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. - Feynman

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Aug 23, 2012 5:15 pm UTC

Patrik3 wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:That said, I strongly suggest you get some basic familiarity and experience with firearms before suggesting ways to "fix all their problems".


Well, crap. No need to get short with me. I thought we were having some friendly discussion. Sure, there were a couple times when I went outside what seems strictly allowed in SB, but that's just me.

Also, I never suggested I could "fix all their problems". I know myself that I don't have enough technical knowledge. I have more knowledge now than I did when I first started posting in this thread, though.

Anyway, I found it a really interesting discussion until now, but I'm gonna stop here if it annoys you.


Apologies, I'm not upset, just got a bit bored with that particular line of discussion. =) If you learned some stuff, that's always a good thing, though. If you want to learn more, I'd suggest looking for a local firearms safety class. They're pretty common in the US, and you do not normally need to own a gun to attend them. Good source for general knowledge.

Patrik3
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:45 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Patrik3 » Thu Aug 23, 2012 11:40 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Apologies, I'm not upset, just got a bit bored with that particular line of discussion. =) If you learned some stuff, that's always a good thing, though. If you want to learn more, I'd suggest looking for a local firearms safety class. They're pretty common in the US, and you do not normally need to own a gun to attend them. Good source for general knowledge.


Ah ok I'd hoped you weren't upset, it just sounded like people were getting a bit annoyed with me in particular. That is kinda the way I do things - too much uninformed inventiveness, and then disappointment as I realize that had I done more research, I'd have known that my ideas probably weren't possible/plausible etc.
I'm a bit bored with the gun thing anyway - I've run out of ideas now (fortunately for you guys!) and writing all those essay-length posts cost me about 2hrs a time so about 4 hrs a day... and I'm not in a job atm, but I can't afford that much time writing stuff on forums even if it is interesting!
Um, but, I can't really attend a gun class in the US. I'm skint enough as it is without buying trans-Atlantic plane tickets, if you get what I mean :wink:

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:02 pm UTC

Patrik3 wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Apologies, I'm not upset, just got a bit bored with that particular line of discussion. =) If you learned some stuff, that's always a good thing, though. If you want to learn more, I'd suggest looking for a local firearms safety class. They're pretty common in the US, and you do not normally need to own a gun to attend them. Good source for general knowledge.


Ah ok I'd hoped you weren't upset, it just sounded like people were getting a bit annoyed with me in particular. That is kinda the way I do things - too much uninformed inventiveness, and then disappointment as I realize that had I done more research, I'd have known that my ideas probably weren't possible/plausible etc.
I'm a bit bored with the gun thing anyway - I've run out of ideas now (fortunately for you guys!) and writing all those essay-length posts cost me about 2hrs a time so about 4 hrs a day... and I'm not in a job atm, but I can't afford that much time writing stuff on forums even if it is interesting!
Um, but, I can't really attend a gun class in the US. I'm skint enough as it is without buying trans-Atlantic plane tickets, if you get what I mean :wink:


Ah, I'm not sure if they're as common on your side of the pond, but I'd have to imagine that at least some level of firearm safety training exists.

NM020110
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 5:03 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby NM020110 » Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:09 am UTC

1.) No experience. The closest thing I've handled was a spring-powered handgun firing plastic pellets, which broke after ~300 shots and a battery powered smooth-bore (it was supposed to be a rifle, but it didn't have any rifling...) firing the same (I had ~700 left sitting around...) which broke after ~200 uses.

2.) Let everyone be allowed to possess any weapon of their choice, and to be trained in its use so long as no law is violated using said weapon. If someone wishes to own, maintain, and practice with a weapon, they should be allowed, regardless of whether it is a spear, a handgun, or a mortar.

3.) Short: I have no idea how to define it in terms of the political spectrum, to be honest. I'd say that I sit somewhere between conservative and liberal (Don't act until you must. When you act, act decisively.), with slight leanings towards the pirate party (still doing research on their philosophy before I'll support them, though...), though in giving this I've probably severely misinterpreted the conservative and liberal philosophies.

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 » Fri Sep 07, 2012 2:32 pm UTC

dshizzle wrote:1. There is no well documented statistical correlation between gun ownership and crime. THIS APPLIES TO BOTH PRO GUN RIGHTS AND PRO GUN CONTROL.

What about the lethality of crime?
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

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Sep 07, 2012 3:39 pm UTC

jules.LT wrote:
dshizzle wrote:1. There is no well documented statistical correlation between gun ownership and crime. THIS APPLIES TO BOTH PRO GUN RIGHTS AND PRO GUN CONTROL.

What about the lethality of crime?


Not to that either. It's not connected to homicide rates, etc.

Now, if guns are legal, guns get used in homicides, sure. People use whatever's around. But in the end, if the only difference is being shot to death or stabbed to death, it's really not worth mentioning.

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 » Sat Sep 08, 2012 9:23 am UTC

That's rather counter-intuitive, to say the least. Involving guns in anything is bound to make it more dangerous.
Do homicides take into account self-defence in your studies? It's not only the victims getting killed...
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
bantler
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:23 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby bantler » Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:05 pm UTC

Data Point:

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


1) Firearm safety course as a child. Some hunting and target practice. Own more guns than my entire family could shoot with both hands.
2) Pro ban on non-sporting high-caliber guns. Pro Ban on swap-meet sales. Pro Background checks.
3) Democrap

Tyndmyr wrote:Not to that either. It's not connected to homicide rates, etc.

Now, if guns are legal, guns get used in homicides, sure. People use whatever's around. But in the end, if the only difference is being shot to death or stabbed to death, it's really not worth mentioning.


Most homicides are not first-degree murder. It's actually kinda hard to stab someone to death. Ever seen Rope?

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 11, 2012 2:59 pm UTC

jules.LT wrote:That's rather counter-intuitive, to say the least. Involving guns in anything is bound to make it more dangerous.
Do homicides take into account self-defence in your studies? It's not only the victims getting killed...


Not necessarily. For instance, 9-11 didn't involve a single gun. Fire, bombs, etc are pretty commonly used, and are remarkably dangerous. One arson gone awry can make a giant mess, and it's often a lot harder to even figure out who did it, or if it WAS arson. Sure, guns probably do make certain crimes more dangerous, but the actual fatality rates don't seem to show us any clear-cut data.

Now, if they do make certain crimes more dangerous, it's reasonable to extrapolate that people respond in ways to reduce this risk. I would expect, for instance, burglers to make more effort to target houses where nobody appears to be home as a result. Higher stakes, so more effort gets put into risk avoidance. Hmm...I wonder if there's a greater dog-bowl effect in areas where pit bulls are legal to own...but I digress. The fact that there isn't an overall fatality rate isn't the same as saying that individual conflicts don't have a greater mortality rate....an alternative explanation is that conflicts ARE more dangerous, there's just less of them for whatever reason(avoidance, surrender when vastly outmatched, etc).

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Gun Control

Postby EdgarJPublius » Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:56 am UTC

Barack Obama wrote: because frankly, in my hometown of Chicago, there's an awful lot of violence, and they're not using AK-47s, they're using cheap handguns.

And so what can we do to intervene to make sure that young people have opportunity, that our schools are working, that if there's violence on the streets, that working with faith groups and law enforcement, we can catch it before it gets out of control?


It's such a shame that this gem came right in the middle of a pledge to reintroduce the Assault Weapons Ban (that objectively failed to have any measurable impact on violent crime.)

It's also a bit troubling that both candidates seemed to think that Automatic Weapons were already illegal, which isn't actually true.

Part of it is seeing if we can get automatic weapons that kill folks in amazing numbers out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.


However, it's closer to the truth than this little nugget.

Have there been any massacres in the U.S. using automatic weapons? The only incident I can think of that comes close is the North Hollywood shooting, which happened during the Assault Weapons Ban (in a state that still has an assault weapons ban) and ten years after the Hughes Amendment to the NFA closed registration of automatic firearms.
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 » Wed Oct 17, 2012 2:39 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:
Barack Obama wrote: because frankly, in my hometown of Chicago, there's an awful lot of violence, and they're not using AK-47s, they're using cheap handguns.

And so what can we do to intervene to make sure that young people have opportunity, that our schools are working, that if there's violence on the streets, that working with faith groups and law enforcement, we can catch it before it gets out of control?


It's such a shame that this gem came right in the middle of a pledge to reintroduce the Assault Weapons Ban (that objectively failed to have any measurable impact on violent crime.)

It's also a bit troubling that both candidates seemed to think that Automatic Weapons were already illegal, which isn't actually true.

Part of it is seeing if we can get automatic weapons that kill folks in amazing numbers out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.


However, it's closer to the truth than this little nugget.

Have there been any massacres in the U.S. using automatic weapons? The only incident I can think of that comes close is the North Hollywood shooting, which happened during the Assault Weapons Ban (in a state that still has an assault weapons ban) and ten years after the Hughes Amendment to the NFA closed registration of automatic firearms.


There have been, to my recollection, exactly two shootings in US history with legal automatic weapons. One of those was by a cop. Neither was a massacre.

Fully automatic weapons are irrelevant to crime and murder. The fuzzier category of "assault weapons" is also pretty irrelevant to crime and murder. Violent criminals typically have lower incomes, and concealability is a major factor. Crime happens with inexpensive, concealable weapons. The knife, the cheap handgun, the can of gasoline and a match...those are the things that actually get used in crime. Snipers and teams of men with assault weapons are mostly a hollywood thing where crime is concerned. You are not John McClaine, and actually worrying about taking on military-style crooks is...kind of paranoid.

I'm very disappointed that again, we bring up gun control is the most pointless context imaginable...and both candidates are clueless.

cphite
Posts: 1360
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby cphite » Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:55 pm UTC

Part of it is seeing if we can get automatic weapons that kill folks in amazing numbers out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.


The reality is that automatic weapons aren't in the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

Violent crimes involving automatic weapons are extremely rare. These weapons are expensive, hard to find, hard to maintain, and much harder to actually use effectively than what is suggested by Hollywood. Most crimes that involve firearms are committed with cheap handguns, which are much easier to afford, much easier to use, and can be concealed. Also, the vast majority of guns used in violent crime - regardless of what type it is - are obtained illegally in the first place. Realistically, unless you frequent drug-trails near the border, your chances of running into anyone with an automatic weapon are slim to none.

The whole point of the Assault Weapons Ban is political. These weapons look more dangerous, and people see them used to great effect on movies and television, so they think that banning them makes them more safe. The reality is that the vast majority of criminals don't want these guns, and wouldn't be obtaining them by legal means if they did want them.

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby Trasvi » Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:39 am UTC

cphite wrote:
Part of it is seeing if we can get automatic weapons that kill folks in amazing numbers out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.


The reality is that automatic weapons aren't in the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

Violent crimes involving automatic weapons are extremely rare. These weapons are expensive, hard to find, hard to maintain, and much harder to actually use effectively than what is suggested by Hollywood. Most crimes that involve firearms are committed with cheap handguns, which are much easier to afford, much easier to use, and can be concealed. Also, the vast majority of guns used in violent crime - regardless of what type it is - are obtained illegally in the first place. Realistically, unless you frequent drug-trails near the border, your chances of running into anyone with an automatic weapon are slim to none.

The whole point of the Assault Weapons Ban is political. These weapons look more dangerous, and people see them used to great effect on movies and television, so they think that banning them makes them more safe. The reality is that the vast majority of criminals don't want these guns, and wouldn't be obtaining them by legal means if they did want them.


Violent crimes involving nuclear bombs are extremely are. These weapons are expensive, hard to find, hard to maintain.... you get the point.
Some weapons are more dangerous than should be allowed for people to own personally. I also think that many lay people don't know the difference between automatic, semi-automatic, machine guns and sub machine guns and so just lump all rapid-firing weapons into a group together. (I've probably just shown my ignorance as well).

The point is that restricting legal access theoretically restricts illegal access. If KMart sold automatic weapons, it could get robbed and the weapons stolen and sold underground. If the weapons aren't there in the first place...
I personally have issues believing any stats in the US relating to gun bans. There is a huge issue that bans are extremely localised and non retrospective, so any 'bans' are in reality just making people take a detour to the next town over. Not enough of a barrier to provide a real deterrent. IMO.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Gun Control

Postby EdgarJPublius » Thu Oct 18, 2012 3:18 am UTC

Trasvi wrote:
cphite wrote:
Part of it is seeing if we can get automatic weapons that kill folks in amazing numbers out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.


The reality is that automatic weapons aren't in the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

Violent crimes involving automatic weapons are extremely rare. These weapons are expensive, hard to find, hard to maintain, and much harder to actually use effectively than what is suggested by Hollywood. Most crimes that involve firearms are committed with cheap handguns, which are much easier to afford, much easier to use, and can be concealed. Also, the vast majority of guns used in violent crime - regardless of what type it is - are obtained illegally in the first place. Realistically, unless you frequent drug-trails near the border, your chances of running into anyone with an automatic weapon are slim to none.

The whole point of the Assault Weapons Ban is political. These weapons look more dangerous, and people see them used to great effect on movies and television, so they think that banning them makes them more safe. The reality is that the vast majority of criminals don't want these guns, and wouldn't be obtaining them by legal means if they did want them.


Violent crimes involving nuclear bombs are extremely are. These weapons are expensive, hard to find, hard to maintain.... you get the point.


I'm not sure I do... these are all qualities that make nuclear devices (and automatic firearms) fundamentally poor choices for criminals irrespective of their presumed capacity for harm.



The point is that restricting legal access theoretically restricts illegal access.


As far as I know, this has never been shown to be true for any nation that has banned firearms.


I personally have issues believing any stats in the US relating to gun bans. There is a huge issue that bans are extremely localised and non retrospective, so any 'bans' are in reality just making people take a detour to the next town over. Not enough of a barrier to provide a real deterrent. IMO.


The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was a ban on many types of weapons on the federal level, that is, nationwide, there was no 'next town over' (except of course the black market). Numerous studies have shown that the ban had no measurable impact on violent crime rates over the ten years it was in effect. There are also plenty of examples of other countries enacting various levels of ban and restriction on firearm that can be used to show that doing so has little to no impact on violent crime.

Just look at the U.K.
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 Oct 18, 2012 3:02 pm UTC

Trasvi wrote:Violent crimes involving nuclear bombs are extremely are. These weapons are expensive, hard to find, hard to maintain.... you get the point.


Yup. This indicates that the current regulation involving nuclear bombs is probably sufficient. I'm not really very worried about people committing street crime with nuclear bombs.

I'd say that ANY type of crime that is ridiculously rare to the level of "it hasn't happened" or "it's only happened once" is probably not one that's a major concern. Exceptions exist for particularly large-scale crimes, but given that people haven't actually been massacred with legal machine guns under the current laws, which have existed for quite a while...I'd say there's no need to change them on that basis.

Some weapons are more dangerous than should be allowed for people to own personally. I also think that many lay people don't know the difference between automatic, semi-automatic, machine guns and sub machine guns and so just lump all rapid-firing weapons into a group together. (I've probably just shown my ignorance as well).


The lumping is correct. It's also terribly inaccurate. The semi-auto shotgun firing three rounds for duck hunting is nothing like the heavy machine gun mounted on a vehicle. That said, neither of those are illegal.

The point is that restricting legal access theoretically restricts illegal access. If KMart sold automatic weapons, it could get robbed and the weapons stolen and sold underground. If the weapons aren't there in the first place...


In theory. Realistically, this is not a concern with current fully automatic weapons. They're sufficiently hard to get, and sufficiently far from crook's favored weapons that this isn't a problem.

Additionally, there's also the fundamental problem that guns are not hard to make. It's not merely a cottage industry...it's a tent industry in many parts of the world. So, there's only so much access restricting you can do for someone willing to break the law.

I personally have issues believing any stats in the US relating to gun bans. There is a huge issue that bans are extremely localised and non retrospective, so any 'bans' are in reality just making people take a detour to the next town over. Not enough of a barrier to provide a real deterrent. IMO.


If you do a meta-study across countries, you get no measurable correlation between gun bans and crime. You can cherry pick countries to demonstrate a correlation either way, but this is obviously not statistically valid. This indicates that gun banning is, if anything, a minor effect on crime, and crime rates are dominated by other factors, be they economic, cultural, etc.

cphite
Posts: 1360
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby cphite » Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:18 pm UTC

Trasvi wrote:
cphite wrote:
Part of it is seeing if we can get automatic weapons that kill folks in amazing numbers out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.


The reality is that automatic weapons aren't in the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

Violent crimes involving automatic weapons are extremely rare. These weapons are expensive, hard to find, hard to maintain, and much harder to actually use effectively than what is suggested by Hollywood. Most crimes that involve firearms are committed with cheap handguns, which are much easier to afford, much easier to use, and can be concealed. Also, the vast majority of guns used in violent crime - regardless of what type it is - are obtained illegally in the first place. Realistically, unless you frequent drug-trails near the border, your chances of running into anyone with an automatic weapon are slim to none.

The whole point of the Assault Weapons Ban is political. These weapons look more dangerous, and people see them used to great effect on movies and television, so they think that banning them makes them more safe. The reality is that the vast majority of criminals don't want these guns, and wouldn't be obtaining them by legal means if they did want them.


Violent crimes involving nuclear bombs are extremely are. These weapons are expensive, hard to find, hard to maintain.... you get the point.


But we aren't talking about anything like a nuclear bomb. We're talking about weapons that are, realistically speaking, only marginally more dangerous than non-automatic weapons; and that are decidedly not ideal for the average criminal. They are difficult to conceal, for example. And they're difficult to actually use effectively.

Some weapons are more dangerous than should be allowed for people to own personally. I also think that many lay people don't know the difference between automatic, semi-automatic, machine guns and sub machine guns and so just lump all rapid-firing weapons into a group together. (I've probably just shown my ignorance as well).


Most of the weapons that are classified as "assault" are actually no different than any other gun expect for how they look. For example, a pistol grip instead of a stock on a rifle is assumed to be somehow more dangerous because it looks scarier.

The point is that restricting legal access theoretically restricts illegal access. If KMart sold automatic weapons, it could get robbed and the weapons stolen and sold underground. If the weapons aren't there in the first place...


Except for the fact that most criminals aren't even looking for these weapons, legal or not, for the reasons previously described. They just aren't very useful from the perspective of the average criminal.

I personally have issues believing any stats in the US relating to gun bans. There is a huge issue that bans are extremely localised and non retrospective, so any 'bans' are in reality just making people take a detour to the next town over. Not enough of a barrier to provide a real deterrent. IMO.


But the main point here is that these weapons are already so rarely used that additional laws to ban them are pointless.

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:27 pm UTC

cphite wrote:Most of the weapons that are classified as "assault" are actually no different than any other gun expect for how they look. For example, a pistol grip instead of a stock on a rifle is assumed to be somehow more dangerous because it looks scarier.


Yup, give any gun a pistol grip and a bayonet mount, and bam, it became an assault weapon under the old assault weapons law. It literally classified guns based on accessories and appearances. For instance, on pistols, making the pistol HEAVIER(unloaded weight) apparently made it more of a "assault weapon".

Because the thing we're all worried about is thugs fixing bayonets for a charge or something. :roll:

About the only actual effect of the law was the ban on manufacture of new high-cap magazines. This effectively made anyone with a pile of old mags laying around a lot of money. If this passed again, I've got something like a dozen old mags I'd gleefully sell off for massive profit. Companies were going day and night stockpiling mags before the ban, and sold off their stockpiles at vastly inflated prices once the ban actually took place. So, in retrospect, it mostly chased a lot of money into the hands of firearm manufacturers and collectors.

User avatar
Gear
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:36 pm UTC
Location: The Milkyway

Re: Gun Control

Postby Gear » Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:51 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:For instance, on pistols, making the pistol HEAVIER(unloaded weight) apparently made it more of a "assault weapon".


Is there any logic behind that (no matter how sketchy) or is it really just a "Yeah, sure, Imma sign off on it 'cause it sounds good" type of thing. Because with my (admittedly enormously limited - trap and sporting clays w/ relatives and some casual reading) knowledge I can't figure out why a 50 ounce semi-automatic pistol would be appreciably more dangerous than a lighter one.

If this is too off topic, apologies, please delete.
“What fun is it being cool if you can't wear a sombrero?”
~Calvin and Hobbes

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Gun Control

Postby EdgarJPublius » Sun Oct 21, 2012 11:38 pm UTC

"Heavy is good, heavy is reliable, if it does not work, you can always hit them with it."
-Boris the Blade (Snatch, 2000)

Well, heavier pistols produce less recoil for a given load... and that's about it. In objective reality, lighter pistols are more concealable, easier to carry, and criminals overwhelmingly prefer light pistols in low-power, inexpensive loads (.38 SPC, 9mm Luger/Parabellum bring the most common by far, likely by virtue of the squintillions of them that exist)

Here's an article on a study apparently done by the ATF on the firearms most commonly used in crimes (And the original Time's article the first link contains basically the whole text of the article, but doesn't link back to it, the actual study apparently remains unreleased, at least, I haven't found a copy or full-text of it anywhere)

it's explained a bit int he article, but I'd like to note that Smith & Wesson .38 and .357 revolver is a genericized term for what are actually J-frame revolvers which are just as likely to be knock-offs , counterfeits or forgeries of actual S&W manufactured firearms as they are to have been manufactured by Smith and Wesson.

Also, firearms chambered in .357 Magnum can load and fire .38 SPC ammunition, but not vice-versa.
As .357 Magnum ammunition is much more expensive (sometimes as much as twice the cost of .38 SPC) it's likely that .357 magnum firearms used in crimes are actually loaded with .38 SPC.
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
addams
Posts: 10186
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Mon Oct 22, 2012 10:12 am UTC

Guns? Insomnia leads me to post.

1. A written and practial test is required to drive a car.

2. Special classes and special tests are required to operate a motercycle.

3. A rifle can kill at a range of five miles.

4. A pellet gun at close range kills.

5. Guns are loud.

6. You are out gunned by the government.

Personal experence? Yes.

The stupid shit people do with guns is funny. Those are the nice people, sane and sober.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10186
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Mon Oct 22, 2012 10:47 am UTC

I know the general population is armed and dangerous.
'
In my experence gun toting Assholes over estamate their skills. Add alcohol and let the fun begin.

A drunk with a car is less of a hassard than a drunk with a gun.

Two drunks in a car is much less dangerous than two drunks with guns.

My position:
Require classes! (Some people need the basics; Such as this is a tool it is not you penis!)
Require a standard test.
Require con't ed.
Required yearly licence.
Hold gun owners responsable for anything the gun does. (The dog has a licence and the owner is responsable for what the dog does.)

Yes. I have been around a lot of guns. I was no more frightened of guns thsn I am the vacume cleaner.-

In the Us the culture has changed. People seem to have too much self esteem.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10186
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:08 am UTC

Over confident, undereducated, sexual inadiquite, country boys + insecure, undereducated urban people all armed. It is a danm wonder we have a few problems as we do.

It would comfort me to think guns and their human compaions are seperate from the non-gun toting population. It is not true.

If you miss your intruder the bullet is highly likley to travel through air, car windows, through walls,bounce off garden walls or pavement and end up in some kids dinner plate or liver.

Yes. I have done stupid things with guns. It runs in my family; The Human Family.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests