Gun Control

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

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Sep 29, 2014 5:56 pm UTC

I'm afraid I don't see the relevance. Yes. Racism is a thing. It needs to be reduced, and people should act racist less. This seems...trivial, and fairly far afield from gun control.

User avatar
Mokele
Posts: 775
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:18 pm UTC
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Gun Control

Postby Mokele » Mon Sep 29, 2014 6:39 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I'm afraid I don't see the relevance. Yes. Racism is a thing. It needs to be reduced, and people should act racist less. This seems...trivial, and fairly far afield from gun control.


Not necessarily. If self-defense, "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine" laws are applied in biased ways (i.e. prosecutorial discretion about who to prosecute in spite of them and who can effectively use them as a defense), they can further entrench existing problems.
"With malleus aforethought, mammals got an earful of their ancestor's jaw" - J. Burns, Biograffiti

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Sep 29, 2014 7:38 pm UTC

Mokele wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I'm afraid I don't see the relevance. Yes. Racism is a thing. It needs to be reduced, and people should act racist less. This seems...trivial, and fairly far afield from gun control.


Not necessarily. If self-defense, "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine" laws are applied in biased ways (i.e. prosecutorial discretion about who to prosecute in spite of them and who can effectively use them as a defense), they can further entrench existing problems.


Biased prosecutorial discretion is a problem, to be sure, but SYG/castle doctrine are not explicitly firearm laws, and in any case, are not particularly reliant on prosecutorial discretion.

I mean, the defendent chooses which defense to pursue. Not the prosecutor. So...not seeing the connection there.

User avatar
Euphonium
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:17 pm UTC
Location: in ur bourgeois bosses' union, agitating ur workers

Re: Gun Control

Postby Euphonium » Tue Sep 30, 2014 12:08 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I'm afraid I don't see the relevance. Yes. Racism is a thing. It needs to be reduced, and people should act racist less. This seems...trivial, and fairly far afield from gun control.


?

Racism isn't individual dickishness--that's "merely" prejudice. Racism is systemic and structural--it's something that's built, intentionally or not, into the very institutions and processes through which our society operates.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10014
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Tue Sep 30, 2014 3:04 am UTC

Euphonium wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I'm afraid I don't see the relevance. Yes. Racism is a thing. It needs to be reduced, and people should act racist less. This seems...trivial, and fairly far afield from gun control.


?

Racism isn't individual dickishness--that's "merely" prejudice. Racism is systemic and structural--it's something that's built, intentionally or not, into the very institutions and processes through which our society operates.

oh, come on.
We've come a long way, Baby.

I think a Class divide gets confused with a Race divide.
Race? pfft.

Let's talk Class.
Is it Classy to have a gun?

(shrug) not really.
It's Classy to hire guys with guns. Right?

In the US, what is admired?
What do You think is Classy?

Is Black, Sleek, Rich and Educated Classy?

How about Latinos?
What is Classy about Latinos?

The Dignified Poor?
Where?? Where are they?

Are they Black, so we can't see them?
They are Not all Black, if they exist at all.
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
sardia
Posts: 6564
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby sardia » Tue Sep 30, 2014 1:36 pm UTC

Euphonium wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I'm afraid I don't see the relevance. Yes. Racism is a thing. It needs to be reduced, and people should act racist less. This seems...trivial, and fairly far afield from gun control.


?

Racism isn't individual dickishness--that's "merely" prejudice. Racism is systemic and structural--it's something that's built, intentionally or not, into the very institutions and processes through which our society operates.

Because how institutional racism is, it does affect gun control. You support open and concealed cArry for example. If we showed that minorities get confronted and killed for more often than whites, then the benefits of guns are denied to minorities. There are many parallels to voting rights restrictions. Obtaining a gun can cost additional time and money. Having a gun puts you under increased scrutiny, aka shot by cops if black. It's not especially relevant but it's something to keep in mind.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10014
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Tue Sep 30, 2014 1:48 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Euphonium wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I'm afraid I don't see the relevance. Yes. Racism is a thing. It needs to be reduced, and people should act racist less. This seems...trivial, and fairly far afield from gun control.


?

Racism isn't individual dickishness--that's "merely" prejudice. Racism is systemic and structural--it's something that's built, intentionally or not, into the very institutions and processes through which our society operates.

Because how institutional racism is, it does affect gun control. You support open and concealed cArry for example. If we showed that minorities get confronted and killed for more often than whites, then the benefits of guns are denied to minorities. There are many parallels to voting rights restrictions. Obtaining a gun can cost additional time and money. Having a gun puts you under increased scrutiny, aka shot by cops if black. It's not especially relevant but it's something to keep in mind.

ok. ok. That is True.
It is a dangerous thing to have guns around.

The number of guns and shots fired is pretty darned high where I am.
The Police don't shoot many.

Rough them up, both physically and psychologically. Yes.
I don't see the Race divide much.

The only people of color we have hanging around here are Professionals.
Oozing middle class competence, with a touch of Class.

Look Becky; Great Skin.
Look how it sets off that color.


We may have four black people that live here.
Three for sure. I don't know them well.

Now; I wonder...Do they know each other?
If you were one of three black people,
Would you look the others up?

If I was one of three white people,
I'd look the others up.

Stupid thing to do.
I'd do it, anyway.

I might get shot.
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
Euphonium
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:17 pm UTC
Location: in ur bourgeois bosses' union, agitating ur workers

Re: Gun Control

Postby Euphonium » Tue Sep 30, 2014 3:24 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Euphonium wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I'm afraid I don't see the relevance. Yes. Racism is a thing. It needs to be reduced, and people should act racist less. This seems...trivial, and fairly far afield from gun control.


?

Racism isn't individual dickishness--that's "merely" prejudice. Racism is systemic and structural--it's something that's built, intentionally or not, into the very institutions and processes through which our society operates.

Because how institutional racism is, it does affect gun control.

Yes, I know.

You support open and concealed cArry for example.

I do? That's news to me.

If we showed that minorities get confronted and killed for more often than whites, then the benefits of guns are denied to minorities.

Indeed.

There are many parallels to voting rights restrictions. Obtaining a gun can cost additional time and money. Having a gun puts you under increased scrutiny, aka shot by cops if black. It's not especially relevant but it's something to keep in mind.

Indeed.

Was there something new in your post which I missed, or were you just stating your total agreement with me?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6564
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby sardia » Tue Sep 30, 2014 3:51 pm UTC

I was replying to tyndmyr but it's hard to edit on a phone. Sorry about the confusion

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 30, 2014 4:08 pm UTC

Euphonium wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I'm afraid I don't see the relevance. Yes. Racism is a thing. It needs to be reduced, and people should act racist less. This seems...trivial, and fairly far afield from gun control.


?

Racism isn't individual dickishness--that's "merely" prejudice. Racism is systemic and structural--it's something that's built, intentionally or not, into the very institutions and processes through which our society operates.


Racism is a blanket term, it encompasses both the actions of individual racists, as well as aggregated racist actions.

sardia wrote:Because how institutional racism is, it does affect gun control. You support open and concealed cArry for example. If we showed that minorities get confronted and killed for more often than whites, then the benefits of guns are denied to minorities. There are many parallels to voting rights restrictions. Obtaining a gun can cost additional time and money. Having a gun puts you under increased scrutiny, aka shot by cops if black. It's not especially relevant but it's something to keep in mind.


So, for instance, if black people get confronted and shot for wearing hoodies at a greater rate than whites, you'd suggest banning hoodies?

Yeah, not seeing this as a great reason for gun control.

User avatar
Mokele
Posts: 775
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:18 pm UTC
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Gun Control

Postby Mokele » Tue Sep 30, 2014 4:10 pm UTC

It's also worth noting that the NRA strongly advocated gun control when the Black Panthers were arming themselves. So not only can there be racist *effects* of gun policies, but the motivation for supporting one side or the other can be racist at times.
"With malleus aforethought, mammals got an earful of their ancestor's jaw" - J. Burns, Biograffiti

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 30, 2014 4:30 pm UTC

Mokele wrote:It's also worth noting that the NRA strongly advocated gun control when the Black Panthers were arming themselves. So not only can there be racist *effects* of gun policies, but the motivation for supporting one side or the other can be racist at times.


Yeah, the NRA used to be *much* more, er...I don't want to sue the word conservative, but it evokes an image that is decently accurate. More of a "traditional values" organization than it's own distinct thing. By the late 70s, the rift between leadership and it's members grew to the point where in '77 they jacked control of the organization. It's been quite different ever since. Definitely a major cultural turning point.

Edit: However, the '68 gun law aimed at the Black Panthers WAS decried by even the old NRA as too restrictive. That article also is pretty crappy at supporting it's claim. You *can* use it to point out that some traditional conservatives like Reagan had a bit of that slant, but the article seems to have fallen prey to lumping them all together without understanding the historical context.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6564
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby sardia » Tue Sep 30, 2014 4:58 pm UTC

Tyndmyr, I did not claim that. I said It's something to keep in mind when talking about gun control. If anything, it's more an argument to be equitable in our laws. If we passed gun control but it adversely affects minorities in a disproportionate manner, I'd be concerned. And this comes from a supporter of gun control.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10014
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Tue Sep 30, 2014 7:52 pm UTC

Mokele wrote:It's also worth noting that the NRA strongly advocated gun control when the Black Panthers were arming themselves. So not only can there be racist *effects* of gun policies, but the motivation for supporting one side or the other can be racist at times.

yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
We know.

They did not prevail.
Did they?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/texa ... ller-cops/
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
sardia
Posts: 6564
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby sardia » Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:11 pm UTC

http://www.npr.org/blogs/goatsandsoda/2 ... n-colombia
Columbia has a high murder rate but it's not because of the drug gangs, it's because of weekend booze plus guns. The mayor sets up stop n frisk checkpoints to confiscate guns at bars on weekends to see if it drops the murder rate. The bar owners are mad that he also banned alcohol sales late at night. The army is opposed because they sell the guns.

It works out and the murder rate goes down. Thoughts on how this compares to American urban gun control? I got questions on how hard this is to replicate. Lowering the substance abuse rate should help but are bars/clubs a significant source of gun violence in the us cities? how is localized checkpoints thAt confiscated guns helpful in the us ?

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:30 pm UTC

Well, we're not Columbia.

Alcohol is associated with many problems, of course. Corralating alcohol with increased violence is likely not hard.

Setting up checkpoints that straight up confiscated guns would be the worst nightmare of the entire pro-gun side, of course. It'd utterly trash any shred of legitimacy on the part of gun control's claims to not want to confiscate guns, and would require imposing a wildly unpopular confiscation regime on people who are both angry and armed.

If you wish to test taking expensive items from armed people, I see a potential problem. However, we DO have a recent law change regarding guns and bars to observe. Virginia extended concealed carry to apply to bars, etc in 2010. Opponents promptly predicted that this would result in violent murder sprees. However, firearm violence crimes actually decreased about 5%*.

This indicates that we should not expect banning firearms from bars in the US to be particularly helpful.

*There was actually only a single bar-related crime in the following year from a CCW holder, and in that incident, the firearm was neither drawn nor fired. The 140-odd other incidents were by people who did not have a permit, same as always.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10014
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:25 pm UTC

Fowed or no.
Here I go.

Alcohol, Money and Family.
Drug Deals gone Wrong.

That is what gets most victims of murder, where I am.
As I read that article, I realized;

We have a Lot of guns.
Not many murders.

Shots fired?
Yes. Loads.

One person Threatening another with a gun?
Yes! Daily!

Depending where a person hangs out,
The air is Filled with thinly veiled Threats.

Not many, in this area, go all the way to the morgue.
We are not all That poorly behaved, it seems.

I am inside the US is a rural area.
Gun ownership is Very High in this area.

I have No Clue what the Crime Rate is.
The local news comes to me the old fashioned way.

If we have a murder or suicide,
I hear about it, whether I want to or not.

We are surprisingly ineffective at murdering each other.
So human of us. We talk Big. We don't Do much.

EDIT: This conversation is more than navel gazing intellectualism to me.

I didn't do it!
I was done, anyway.

When I stand at the kitchen sink,
I face a broken window.

That window was broken by a bullet.
I have heard some of the story.

It was three drug dealers and an intense night of arguing and bickering.

I know some of those people.
I can almost imagine it.

Before it was over,
shots were fired.

The story goes:
It was All Over;

One guy got to Thinking about it.
He came back and attempted to shoot the guy that was standing at the kitchen sink.

Attempted.
He hit the window and missed his Little Friend.

We are Not a bunch of Sharp Shooter.
It's harder than it looks to shoot well.

Then 'they' are impaired in some way.
Drink, Drugs, Emotions Running High.

BAM! The window Explodes!
I was not here when That window went.

I have seen it.
I believe you.


Hickery Dickery Dock.
The Mice Ran Up The Clock.

The Clock Struck One.
The rest escaped with minor injuries.


I was a Huge Fan of Gun Safety and Target Classes.
I'm not too sure, anymore. School's not for everyone.

Our murder rate may be low, because we are incompetent with fire arms.
Teaching us may increase our Kill rate. Is that what we want?

We try.
We miss.
We could study up and get better.
Last edited by addams on Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:45 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
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
sardia
Posts: 6564
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby sardia » Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:41 pm UTC

http://www.tedmed.com/talks/show?id=75793
You're too late, pilot programs hAve already started. Didnt nyc do a variation on checkpoints called stop n frisk? It was racists but it was correlated with results.

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:54 pm UTC

sardia wrote:http://www.tedmed.com/talks/show?id=75793
You're too late, pilot programs hAve already started. Didnt nyc do a variation on checkpoints called stop n frisk? It was racists but it was correlated with results.


Stop and frisk wasn't merely a firearms thing, and it wasn't necessarily just confiscatory...though I think it still went too far based on other constitutional grounds. Confiscations of knives, guns, etc did happen, but at a pretty low rate*, and it was quite abysmal for getting arrests, with the vast majority of stops not resulting in a conviction.

Yeah, violent crime overall decreased while stop and frisk was happening, but at a lower rate than it had been decreasing. Violent crime has been going down everywhere...but the drops do not correlate to the implementation of this policy. In fact, some studies believe that the increasing alienation of some communities results in a net negative effect. Elements like "nobody trusts cops and stops reporting them" will give you results that make a draconian policy LOOK like it's working, even when it's not.

Stop and frisk isn't merely bad because it is racist(though it was also that), it's bad because it doesn't work, and it basically craps on freedom.

*Source for this, and many of the other claims: Drugs were far higher across all demographics

User avatar
Steampunk_Bard
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2015 4:34 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Steampunk_Bard » Sun Jun 28, 2015 9:46 am UTC

Is it just me or does this conversation keep veering off in strange directions?

I think that a stronger screening process when purchasing guns is pretty reasonable and something that people can generally get behind. I can't see any blanket ban or a law actively taking guns from people happening pretty much at all here.

I'm interested in what people think about restricting magazine sizes. I always thought of it as something positive and mostly negligible to owners, but maybe I'm wrong.

(Oh, and the racism point is something to keep in mind for sure, but I think of it being more of a racism issue than a guns one)

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3666
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Gun Control

Postby EdgarJPublius » Sun Jun 28, 2015 3:17 pm UTC

Steampunk_Bard wrote:
I think that a stronger screening process when purchasing guns is pretty reasonable and something that people can generally get behind.


On the other hand, there's a not-insignificant base-rate/false-positive problem with stricter screening. And on the gripping hand, we already have the problem where people who are prohibited from firearm ownership by the current screening requirement are obtaining firearms anyway.

So the net effect of 'stronger screening' is that criminals who already bypass the screening requirement are not impacted, and non-criminals are adversely impacted.


I mean, it's a great idea in theory, but reality is complicated.

Steampunk_Bard wrote:I'm interested in what people think about restricting magazine sizes. I always thought of it as something positive and mostly negligible to owners, but maybe I'm wrong.


If such laws are mostly negligible to owners, why do you think they would have any positive impact on criminals?
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 » Mon Jun 29, 2015 2:22 pm UTC

Steampunk_Bard wrote:Is it just me or does this conversation keep veering off in strange directions?

I think that a stronger screening process when purchasing guns is pretty reasonable and something that people can generally get behind. I can't see any blanket ban or a law actively taking guns from people happening pretty much at all here.

I'm interested in what people think about restricting magazine sizes. I always thought of it as something positive and mostly negligible to owners, but maybe I'm wrong.

(Oh, and the racism point is something to keep in mind for sure, but I think of it being more of a racism issue than a guns one)


Oh, hey, this thread is back.

The issue isn't the laws in the screening process. The issue is enforcement. This last mass shooting, we had a public lament of not being able to get stronger gun laws. Never mind that the guy already broke existing laws by having the gun. Previous drug conviction, made him ineligible. So, daddy bought him a gun. Wildly illegal. Dad had to explicitly lie on forms to do this.

Now that it's come to light, and people died as a result, will dad be prosecuted? Doubtful. But he should be. The mantra of the gun advocates is that we should stop passing laws, and start enforcing the ones we have. Unenforced laws only hamper the law abiding.

Mag bans are obnoxious. My state bans purchase of mags larger than 10 within state lines. So, everyone drives to the gun fair conveniently at the border, and buys them there. It's like fireworks. Criminals usually require far fewer rounds than legitimate use does, so any sort of ammunition/mag restriction is futile. Likewise, sucide, while a concern, is not something that can be alleviated by restricting magazine capacity. It does not provide any positive advantage whatsoever, and only is promoted as a means to further restrict, regulate, and destroy gun culture.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10014
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:57 pm UTC

Yes.
Guns have a culture.
It is fucking strange, but true.

For those without a gun culture:
Imagine cars and people that own and use cars.

Can you think of any other example that would explain what Gun Culture is to people that have never seen it'?
It is a diverse bunch. Not all are planing to shoot people. Not all car people are going on a Road Trip. See?
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.

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby leady » Wed Jul 01, 2015 12:37 pm UTC

all countries have a gun culture, the only differences are which parts of the culture get to use the guns

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jul 01, 2015 2:43 pm UTC

leady wrote:all countries have a gun culture, the only differences are which parts of the culture get to use the guns


Well said.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10014
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Wed Jul 01, 2015 2:53 pm UTC

leafy wrote:all countries have a gun culture, the only differences are which parts of the culture get to use the guns

Nah. I've been to other countries.
Ownership and use of guns is rare in many other places.

In the US, I assume there is at least one gun in most homes.
That is not true when I am in western Europe.

Here it is Normal.
There it is Edgy.

Do we need to define Culture?
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.

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jul 01, 2015 2:57 pm UTC

Is it only the police? Is it a privilege reserved only for the upper class, who can afford to attend gun clubs and buy expensive licenses?

In my state, MD, licenses are ridiculously restricted for carrying firearms, and the police have a very high standard in terms of personal safety. Generally, a mere single attempt on your life is not enough. You've got to have a history from someone still out there(that you survived without a firearm, somehow), and very few are granted for this reason.

However, protecting MONEY, instead of mere peasant lives, is automatically worthy. Also, politicians are automatically granted such a permit without even needing to file paperwork.

That's a gun culture of sorts. It's just a really toxic one.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10014
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:54 am UTC

oh...
We are talking about two different things.
In my head, Gun Culture shows in the way people relax with one another.

Like people that speak a common language.
Often the individual members have gone though the same 'rites of passage'.

Catholic kids go to Catechism.
Jewish kids go to Hebrew School.
Gun kids take Gun Safety and Target.

So...oops.
We were using the same word for different phenomenon.
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.

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jul 02, 2015 3:07 pm UTC

There are many cultures. The most common one in the US is as you describe. But, different countries view firearms very differently. Gun culture in the UK is a term that'll be understood somewhat differently from in America. In Japan, even more so.

A *lot* of the battle is really over control of the culture, and here is where the NRA really does have actual power. They spend huge amounts on training, etc to promote safe hobbyist use of firearms, and tries to draw in those people who own firearms who don't really know how to use them, and are not very connected to gun culture at large.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1938
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Gun Control

Postby Sableagle » Thu Jul 30, 2015 5:43 pm UTC

Don't expect me to read every post in this thread!

dshizzle wrote:I am interested to know the opinions on Gun Control of the forum. Please include the following.

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


1) Plinked paper with air rifles and .22LR rifles from age 13 or so, 5.56x45mm manually cycled and 7.62x51mm single-shot rifles for a year or so around age 17, .22 LR, .38 Sp, 9x19mm, .45 ACP and .357 Magnum handguns and 12-gauge shotgun at age 19, gas-operated 5.56x45mm rifle from 21 to 29, some clay shooting and vermin control with 12-gauge and been doing vermin control with a .177 for 21 years now.

3) According to The Political Compass, somewhere near Gandhi. Bull-frickin'-horse-shit. Way too freedom-loving for UK's New Labour, Conservative, BNP and UKIP and US Democrat and Republican parties, left of the Conservatives and right of France on the economy. I tend to believe that what works best is a better idea than what clearly doesn't work. Portugal's approach to cannabis appears to work far better than the War On Drugs, so I'd be inclined to follow Portugal's example. The Netherlands are (is?) a better place to raise children than the UK, so maybe we should try to be more like them in some relevant ways. Germany's got a better jobs situation and came through the recession better, so I think we should emulate the German economic policies more.

2) They are written by dangerous lunatics. "A shoulder thing that goes up?" No, woman. That's a heat shield. The little loop of stiff wire at the left edge of this image is a shoulder thing that goes up. It's there to support the rear end of the weapon on yoru shoulder so you can shoot more accurately. How's that bad, anyway? Would you rather have bullets going off all over the show? I've heard of places where guns have to be carried "openly" and even having it in your hand or in a holster counts as "concealing" it, which is nuts. Apparently, in California, if the pistol grip extends below the level of the bottom of the butt it's illegal. You know what bothers me more than which part of the furniture is lower when the barrel's horizontal? WHICH WAY IT'S POINTING! Over here, it's a firearms offence to startle someone with the noise of an airgun discharge, even if the airgun isn't classed as a firearm, within 50 feet of the centre line of a highway. 10-foot-wide minor road? You've got to be 46 feet from the tarmac before you shoot. 110-foot-wide four-lane-each-way motorway? If you're within 10 feet of the centre line, nobody's going to hear the shot over all the beeping and screeching of tyres. I can't legally shoot from the side of a minor road at a rabbit with a high earth bank behind it, but I can legally crawl down the stream and then shoot from that earth bank at the rabbit with the road behind it.

I would, if I were invited to stand on a podium and propose policies, propose something more like the UK driver licensing system. As a suggestion:

a: revolvers, whether single-action, double-action or double-action-only.
b: semi-automatic handguns.
c: break-action shotguns.
d: pump-action shotguns.
e: SMLE3-type weapons.
f: M14-type weapons.
g: AR-15-type weapons.
h: AR-18-type weapons.
i: AK-anything.

... et cetera. Muzzle-loaders should probably be in there too, plus the Sten (Sterling-Enfield sub-machine gun) and the PS90. The idea is that someone can be trained in the safe and proper use and general handling of a *type* of weapon, and thereby gain the relevant capital letter on their licence. Someone with ABCDEfgHi is qualified on handguns, shotguns, bolt-action rifles and that thing I linked above but only has a provisional licence for the M14, Mini-14, AR-15, AK47, AKM, AK74, AK102, AK105, ...

There would have to be a phase-in period in which people could get the next endorsement: instructor. A*-B-C-D-E*-f-g-H*-i has the same qualifications as above and can supervise and instruct provisional licence-holders with revolvers, bolt-action rifles and the AR-18 family. Without such an instructor around, it becomes illegal to be in possession of a weapon on which you're not qualified without good cause. Obviously, if it comes to a fight and you brain some loonie with a bar stool, take his gun out of his nerveless hands and use it to stop his mates, that's not an offence of having that gun without being qualified to use it. You don't get to keep it, though.

Capital letters need a minimum age, and ... mental fitness has to be ascertained. I would suggest that the provisional licence should be issued only on completion of some level of schooling, and revoked on diagnosis of certain medical conditions or on conviction for certain offences.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1938
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Gun Control

Postby Sableagle » Thu Jul 30, 2015 5:57 pm UTC

I should also quote these. They'd be part of the test to get the provisional, and breaking them would be an immediate failure on any test:

RULE 1: treat EVERY gun like it is loaded
RULE 2: NEVER point your gun at ANYTHING that isn't a target
RULE 3: Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire
RULE 4: Be sure of your target, & what's beyond/behind it


It's always pointing somewhere.
Never point in any direction you're not prepared to fire.
Never fire at anything you're not out to destroy.
Assume it's loaded.
There's only one control inside the trigger guard, and it has only one purpose: to drop the hammer. If you're not dropping the hammer, you don't need to have a finger inside the trigger guard.
Cover from sight does not equal cover from fire. In other words, someone who can't see you could hit you and you could hit someone you can't see.
Conversely, clear line of sight does not equal clear line of fire. If you're using a telescopic sight, it's awfully easy to have a beautifully clear picture of a target, track it, squeeze off a shot ... and get a faceful of fragments from the impact on a solid wall that was blocking the barrel but not the scope.


Also: There is no such thing as "only a twenty-two." A point-two-two, as the mathematically literate call it, is lethal.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3666
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Gun Control

Postby EdgarJPublius » Fri Jul 31, 2015 6:16 am UTC

Sableagle wrote:a: revolvers, whether single-action, double-action or double-action-only.
b: semi-automatic handguns.
c: break-action shotguns.
d: pump-action shotguns.
e: SMLE3-type weapons.
f: M14-type weapons.
g: AR-15-type weapons.
h: AR-18-type weapons.
i: AK-anything.


Why is a Desert Eagle classified the same as a Ruger mk3, but an M14, AR-15, AR-18 and AK-anything all separate classes?

IF you're going to have a licensing and endorsement system, it does make a certain amount of sense to have different endorsements required for different styles of firearm. But I would think that the magazine-fed semi-autos would all be similar enough to be classified together. As a group they're probably more closely related in operation and capabilities than semi-auto pistols are.

If I were to define the different levels of endorsement, it would probably be something like
  • a: Manual operated handguns (single shot + revolvers)
  • b: Self-loading handguns (semi-auto pistols)
  • c: Manual operated shotguns and rifles (Single-shot, Break-action, Pump-Action, Lever Action, Bolt Action)
  • d: Self-loading shotguns and rifles (Semi-autos w/ detachable or fixed magazines/clips)
  • e: Fully automatic firearms
  • f: Destructive Devices
  • g: Other/Misc.
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
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1938
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Gun Control

Postby Sableagle » Fri Jul 31, 2015 5:34 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:Why is a Desert Eagle classified the same as a Ruger mk3, but an M14, AR-15, AR-18 and AK-anything all separate classes?

IF you're going to have a licensing and endorsement system, it does make a certain amount of sense to have different endorsements required for different styles of firearm. But I would think that the magazine-fed semi-autos would all be similar enough to be classified together. As a group they're probably more closely related in operation and capabilities than semi-auto pistols are.
Describe for me the sequence of actions involved in picking up a Browning Buckmark .22 LR target pistol, checking that it's empty, taking it to the firing point, loading and readying it, aiming, arming and firing it, unloading it and making sure it's empty. Then do the same for a Desert Eagle. Then play spot the difference. The Deagle's a direct-impingement, gas-operated weapon like an AR-15, whereas the Buckmark's a straight blowback system, and the Deagle's more likely to have a muzzle brake, but that doesn't affect how you use it.
Try the same with the M16, L85 and AK102, all of them gas-operated select-fire 5.56x45mm rifles, and you'll see a lot of differences. The magazine release is in a different place, the safety catch works differently, the working parts are held open in a different way if at all and so on.
I'm not talking about clearing someone to use .22SR, .25ACP, .32ACP, .38Sp, .22LR, .44Sp, 9x19mm, .40 S&W, .45ACP, .357Mag, 10mm Auto, 5.45x39mm, .44Mag, 5.56x45mm, .50AE, 7.62x39mm, 6.5mm Grendel, .308 Winchester, .303 British, .500 S&W, .30-06 Springfield and .338 Lapua Magnum separately. Yes, they have different capabilities. That's not the issue. The issue is the strange tendency of guns to have rounds in their chambers even when people thought they were empty, to be pointing somewhere even when people weren't tryign to point them anywhere particular and to go off when fired even when people didn't really mean it. I want the guy with the hunting rifle on his back who stops for a sandwich and a cup of tea at the same place and time as I do to really, really know, not just be sure, whether or not there's a round in the chamber of that rifle.

I put shotguns and rifles into separate categories because they have separate roles and they launch rather different projectiles. A rifle, most significantly, makes one hole, whereas a shotgun makes 1 to 200 holes, depending on the ammunition loaded into it. Part of qualifying with any gun would be hitting the red 2l soda bottle without hitting the green, blue or white one, or hitting the white without hitting the red, blue or green, or whatever, and knowing in advance without having to try it whether or not you could. In the case of a rifle, that means knowing whether you're a good enough shot and whether the bullet's deflection on passing through one bottle is enough to make it hit one of the other bottles. See rule above about knowing what's behind your target. In the case of a shotgun, it means the above and knowing how much your shot spreads out at that range. Depending on choke and shot size, the pattern diameter is probably something like (distance to target - 1metre)/25 ... but if you're going to have a shotgun you should be able to judge what you'll hit with it if you try any particular shot. (Sidetrack: another reason to use a T turkey load for home defence is that it'll put more pellets into the part of the pattern that is the intruder not masked by your family member than, for example, #1 buck.)
You should also know how dangerous your weapon is at a given range. #4 dove shot at 300m is not really all that unpleasant. #4 dove shot at 3m will make a mess. A .22LR bullet, coming out with 200J to a 12-gauge shotgun's 3 or 4 kJ of muzzle energy, .22LR at 300 yards or even at quarter of a mile is seriously dangerous stuff and will make a mess of someone you may not have known was there.

What's your definition of a destructive device? RPG? Mortar? Pipe bomb? Flamethrower? Chainsaw? They're all used rather differently.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3666
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Gun Control

Postby EdgarJPublius » Sat Aug 01, 2015 3:15 pm UTC

So, a Buckmark and a Deagle are fairly similar, but like with the rifles, the controls are located in different places and operate differently, The main operational difference is that a Desert Eagle is a hammer fired DA/SA while the browning is striker fired. That hammer makes a big difference, it's one reason why NYPD cops trained to holster revolvers by riding the hammer keep shooting themselves since they're actually issued striker fired pistols.

A Ruger .22 is a little more different, it has semi-exposed 'bolt' which instead of a true slide, the Mk3 also has an additional safety mechanism in the form of an internal locking mechanism, so actually pretty different in operation than a hammer fired Desert Eagle with an external slide.

Consider also the difference between SAO, DAO, and SA/DA hammer fired pistols, where the hammer behaves differently and manipulating it achieves different results.

What about a Sig Sauer, no manual safety, but they do have decocking levers.

Or a 1911, SAO with a thumb and a grip safety

Glock, striker fired with no external controls other than the slide release and magazine release

Beretta PX4, hammer fired, mix and match different actions and safety mechanisms

FNH FNP/X The safety and the decocker are on the same lever for some reason


Sure, semi-auto rifles might have their controls all looking different and in different places, but they're basically the same controls with a few relatively minor exceptions, even across different styles and actions.


Destructive Device is currently defined in U.S. law by the NFA as amended by the Safe Streets and Gun Control Acts of 1968 (it's a stupid definition though)

DD and Other/Misc categories would probably have to be handled differently from the rest, maybe as separate licenses with endorsements for specific systems rather than classifications.
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
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1938
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Gun Control

Postby Sableagle » Sat Aug 01, 2015 4:21 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:NYPD cops trained to holster revolvers by riding the hammer keep shooting themselves since they're actually issued striker fired pistols.
Well, it's nice that they can hit someone, even if only at very short range.

Maybe the pistol course should cover all those variants and include a caveat: "Figure out which of these it is before you try to use it." At least with an AR-15, L85 or AK102, you don't mistake one for the other.

AK bolt won't come back unless you take the safety off. You can pull it far enough to see the chambered round gleaming, but not far enough to see into the chamber or eject / chamber a round. With most weapons it's "safe direction, safety on, mag off, bolt open, lock open, check chamber," but with the AK system that's not possible. Also the mag change is done differently. They hook in at the front and then pull back to lock, rather than dropping out and sliding in. AR15 to L85, apart from the bullpup thing, the fire selector actually stays in place behind the magazine housing (putting it almost touching the shooter's right pectoral) but is up-down not back-front and the safety catch (1) moves to above the front of the trigger guard and is pushed through with the right hand index finger to release it or with the left thumb to apply it and (2) is a bloody joke anyway. It's a plastic rod with a notch in it. Notch in front of top part of trigger, trigger can move. Non-notched part of rod in front of top part of trigger, trigger takes a lot more force to squeeze hard enough to fire a shot. The safety catch has nothing to do with the hammer. It just blocks the top of the trigger.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3666
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Gun Control

Postby EdgarJPublius » Sat Aug 01, 2015 4:52 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:Maybe the pistol course should cover all those variants and include a caveat: "Figure out which of these it is before you try to use it."


But then you are still left with the pistol certification as 'familiarize yourself with the manual of arms for your chosen platform' while the rifles are all beautiful and unique snowflakes and you must be certified for every specific make and model you want to own/operate.


Sableagle wrote:At least with an AR-15, L85 or AK102, you don't mistake one for the other.


Try telling that to the media, or the law-makers that can't tell the difference between a barrel shroud and a shoulder-thing-that-goes-up
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
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1938
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Gun Control

Postby Sableagle » Sat Aug 01, 2015 6:11 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:
Sableagle wrote:At least with an AR-15, L85 or AK102, you don't mistake one for the other.


Try telling that to the media, or the law-makers that can't tell the difference between a barrel shroud and a shoulder-thing-that-goes-up


Very first part of my answer to question 2:
Sableagle wrote:They are written by dangerous lunatics. "A shoulder thing that goes up?" No, woman. That's a heat shield.


My experience of handguns has been somewhat limited by me being in the UK and having been born not long before 1978 (so I turned 18 not long before the Dunblane school shootings) so there may be more differences that I know. I've never mat a handgun yet that you can't lock back by holding the grip in your left hand, pulling back the slide with your right and stroking the catch upwards with your right thumb, though.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

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

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 03, 2015 7:12 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:My experience of handguns has been somewhat limited by me being in the UK and having been born not long before 1978 (so I turned 18 not long before the Dunblane school shootings) so there may be more differences that I know. I've never mat a handgun yet that you can't lock back by holding the grip in your left hand, pulling back the slide with your right and stroking the catch upwards with your right thumb, though.


There are some exceptions. Personally, all my firearms at present operate this way, because it's something I prefer, but I grew up shooting some guns that didn't really have a catch to hold the bolt back as a normal thing. Firearms lasting basically forever if taken care of, these older models are still around. I've shot civil war era firearms plenty, it's not even unusual...so you can't really classify everything in a logical, fairly concise manner in the way you're going for without running into a whole lot of edge cases.

This is already something of a problem, because a great many edge cases rely on BATF rule interpretation. Also, it's super hard to get a straight answer out of them when calling them, because they are motivated for legal reasons to avoid this. So, an interpretation changes, maybe because the guy in a given position changes, and bam, all sorts of follow on effects as enforcement changes. It's obnoxious.

Laws should be comprehensible, and someone should be able to definitively know if action A breaks the law.

You can't entirely enforce safety...but you can encourage it. Safety is like security, it's something you practice, not a box you check.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 13 guests