Gun Control in the US

Leroy42

There is a very good opinion piece in politico about this debate, coming from the side that simply banning guns isn't the answer. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/18/whats-missing-from-the-gun-debate-217022

What it argues is that despite 20+ years since Columbine, and the many shootings since, the authorities really don't have a clue why any of this is happening.

So, if any reductions or additional controls are currently off the table, then at the very least they need to get a full understanding of the problem so that whatever the right answers are can be found.

As I have pointed out, and pointed out in the article, the NRA has been very successful closing down any research in this area, leaving people to argue the normal points about home protection etc without any evidence to back any of the positions up.

Mellor

Manic Moran wrote: »

Mechanical rate of fire need only be equal to the availability of things to shoot at.

That's only true at 100% accuracy. If accuracy is 50% the rate of needs to be double, if it 10% it needs to be 10x the availability. So inversely, by achieving a higher rate of fire, it allows somebody shoot volume and hope rather than aim for technical, accurate shooting. You see the other issue here, right? By chieving the same outcome with a low accuracy, the technical threshold to become a capable mass shooter plummets.

I submit that the required rate of fire can be easily met by more limited capacity magazines as well as standard or high capacity. We conduct annual active shooter drills, and we use blank ammo and 30-round mags, gives us a reasonable assessment.

A 30-round mag isn't, by any stretch, a limited capacity magazine.

About 1,100 over a period of eleven minutes.

So far far more than he'd have been able to achieve without cranks, or bumpstocks

Is it ridiculous? How would he have managed if he had had enforced cooling pauses instead of encountering the multiple weapons jams he suffered due to his lack of fire discipline? The reason the Army considers the sustained rate of fire of the M4 to be 12-15 rounds per minute is because the weapon isn't designed to fire faster than that.

Irrelevant. He had 23 guns (due to another ridiculous lack of regulation) they were essentially throwaways. He doesn't ned to be concerned with ruining his firearms or avoiding jams. He could fire until they jammed and just grab the nest one.

Now, in theory, he could have had a weapon designed to fire sustained. For example, FN has a civilian version of the M249 (You may know it as the Minimi). It's $8,000 plus tax, add another thousand or for a spare barrel to keep it going a bit longer, which makes it a rarity. Still, he certainly seems to have had the money for it, so we are talking about another matter entirely there. Even at that, though, the M249 is designed to fire short bursts: The Army says sustained rate of fire of 100 rounds a minute, rapid fire is 200 rounds a minute. Given the cyclic is 800 rpm, in sustained fire, that's one second of firing for every eight seconds of not firing. I think most people can change a magazine in eight seconds.

Presumably the civilian version doesn't fire at 800 RPM though. Regardless, the fact that a civilian version of the M249 was availible to him is exactly the issue. Bringing that up helps my position, not yours. As you can maybe tell, i'm not actually against guns - when there's a reason. I can't think of any reason where Jor Bloggs has need of a SAW capablr of 400 rounds in a 2 min burst.

Yes, I will agree with you there. But then, you start running into problems at the other end of the scale. Police, on average, score one hit out of five rounds fired. That's hit, not stopping hit. Shooting at live targets tends to result in misses, even if the live target isn't trying to threaten you (150 rounds fired in Florida, he missed with most).

I'm aware. See my point above about rate of fire verses available targets.

Those of us who keep firearms for defense tend not to have spare magazines lying around, what is in the weapon is all we get. I am reminded of the chap in Oklahoma last year who shot three intruders (and then grandfather of one complained it wasn't fair he had an AR and they only had brass knuckles), I don't think I could do that with my 10-round limit here in California.

Doesn't this completely contradict your opening line about rate of fire only needs to match targets.

Then you have the really big practical problem. The number of standard capacity magazines currently in the US begins with a 'b' (plus an estimated 40 million high capacity). Like most Californian gun owners, I have a whole bunch of the things in my garage. Because I follow the law, I don't insert them into the weapon within the State borders, but that's hardly an affirmative prevention. And the other minor issue is that, being non-stress-bearing-parts, 3D-printing the things is easy with a cheap printer. So, even if a magazine ban were to be enacted, good luck actually doing any good with it while you inhibit the law-abiding.

I agree that the problem might be too wide spread to get under control. That doesn't make it any less wrong though.

Tabnabs

Manic Moran wrote: »

However, for 'Whitey', I can't think of anything requiring armed resistance to government bodies since 1948 (Battle of Athens).

Three recent examples of government tyranny against white, blue collar Americans are generally considered to be Waco, Ruby Ridge and the Bundy ranch standoff.

Leroy42

Tabnabs wrote: »

Two recent examples of government tyranny against white, blue collar Americans are generally considered to be Waco and Ruby Ridge.

And what did having all those guns for those groups achieve? A prolonged siege, the death of some FBI etc and the wipeout of the people involved.

Imagine they had no guns. Do you think it would have ended differently? So in these cases you you argue that having guns merely increased the danger that those in the communes were in.

Had the assault on these not ended the siege, do you really think the government would not have simply increased the number and level of weapons?

You have police forces in the US driving around in armoured cars and using full body armour and military grade weapons. That is the starting point.

Tabnabs

The subject was tyranny by the state against its citizens. When guns are introduced it becomes democide, when the State (or agents of) unlawfully kill their own citizens.

Leroy42

No. Tyranny was brought up as it gives a reason, in fact the core reason, for the right to ownership of guns.

You brought up two examples, and I simply pointed out that having guns provided nothing in terms of stopping tyranny.

It is akin to the home security argument. Sounds great in theory, but there is no facts to back it up. I don't disagree that the public should be able to stand up to tyranny, but the fact of having some guns, when faced with the greatest military power the world has ever known, and that they will somehow make a difference does not stand up to scruntiny

Tabnabs

The third example (I subsequently added) , the Bundy case, illustrated how an equalling of the number of guns on both sides brought the issue to a legal and bloodless conclusion.

Waco and Ruby Ridge illustrated to gun owners the lengths the Federal State will go to disarm its own citizens. These people may not have been upstanding citizens, but they died without any judge or jury for their perceived crimes.

seamus

What's most interesting is that 2 of those 3 examples - Waco and Ruby Ridge - started out as attempts to make arrests for firearms offences. If the gun culture didn't exist, the FBI would have had no reason to disturb Koresh and his followers, and Randy Weaver and his family would be happily isolated lunatics on a mountain ridge.

Even the Bundy ranch example, would have been far less of an issue without the existence of weapons. In the same way that bunches of idiots from the Land League have appeared here to try and stop repossessions, it would have been the Bundy Ranch protest instead of standoff.

The defenders of gun ownership just can't see that the thing they claim they need to protect themselves from danger, is the thing that causes the danger in the first place.

AbusesToilets

Enzokk wrote: »

I guess the question then becomes, did those soldiers who overthrew their government have weapons to do it or did they acquire it by fair or fowl means? It seems to me that in all those cases you mention that there are outside actors involved in supplying weapons or training that creates a civil war and thus the overthrow of a government. I can remember a lot more peaceful protests that have lead to changes in government where a war was not needed.

Unless I am missing something, but is the US really sliding towards a situation where a civil war will be started? If you are using the defence that there may be a time where I would need to arm myself to fight the government, then the self defence argument seems moot. Or if you use the self defence argument then the need for weapons that could help with an insurgency (automatic rifles to fight the automatic rifles, drones, aircraft and bombs of your own government and army) doesn't seem needed and should be controlled.

For me, the gun argument in the US is as silly and stupid as Brexit. The reason for this is because it deal with feelings. How can someone be persuaded to feel different about a situation? If you feel unsafe without your gun, then no amount of facts will convince you otherwise, because you feel unsafe. We can see the UK is on the way to deliberately hurting the economy because of feelings. The US seems fine with tragedies that involve children (that is kids being slaughtered) because some want to feel safer.

Most of them started off with groups using what they had to hand at the time, and acquiring more materiel as things progressed. I know from person experience that it doesn't take much to stymie a technologically advanced group, Apache helicopters are not as awesome as Ted would have you believe.

The dual concepts of the 2nd, a protection against tyranny and personal defense, are not mutually exclusive. I'm aware that such an interpretation is a more recent development, but then again so are spree killings of the current ilk.

I don't need my guns because I'm paralyzed by fear. I enjoy shooting, but I also know that criminals could threaten my family, and so I will take necessary steps to give myself an ability to protect them. Would you say a person who prepares for power outages by stocking up on food or water is obsessing out of fear, or taking rational precautions?

AbusesToilets

seamus wrote: »

What's most interesting is that 2 of those 3 examples - Waco and Ruby Ridge - started out as attempts to make arrests for firearms offences. If the gun culture didn't exist, the FBI would have had no reason to disturb Koresh and his followers, and Randy Weaver and his family would be happily isolated lunatics on a mountain ridge.

Even the Bundy ranch example, would have been far less of an issue without the existence of weapons. In the same way that bunches of idiots from the Land League have appeared here to try and stop repossessions, it would have been the Bundy Ranch protest instead of standoff.

The defenders of gun ownership just can't see that the thing they claim they need to protect themselves from danger, is the thing that causes the danger in the first place.

Unarguably, there would have been less likelihood of a deadly confrontation. However, it doesn't necessarily challenge the narrative of a oppressive government taking action against a group of citizens. I'm not arguing for the particular merits of this cases, mind. The Bundy one in particular was a pretty clear case of a group getting away with questionably legal behavior.

AbusesToilets

Mellor wrote: »

Anachronism is a very odd choice of words. Can you explain the logic there.

It's a recent mechanical invention designed to circumnavigate the entirely reasonable restriction on citizens accessing select fire weapons, at least without the extensive and incredibly expensive process involved to do so legally.

AbusesToilets

Here's proposal for consideration, in the vein of compromise. A lot of discussion has been made with relation to the capacity of the weapons used recently in these spree killings.

Would posters on here think it favorably to pass legislation that would aim to mandate limited magazine sizes, say 10rds, and perhaps a maximum number by caliber type, 5 for arguments sake. In return, suppressors would be removed from the NFA, making them legal for purchase without requiring a tax stamp?

notobtuse

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Here's proposal for consideration, in the vein of compromise. A lot of discussion has been made with relation to the capacity of the weapons used recently in these spree killings.

Would posters on here think it favorably to pass legislation that would aim to mandate limited magazine sizes, say 10rds, and perhaps a maximum number by caliber type, 5 for arguments sake. In return, suppressors would be removed from the NFA, making them legal for purchase without requiring a tax stamp?

No. There are already many millions of 10-plus round magazines currently in circulation in the US. Short of a government confiscation of all these of magazines, they would still be readily available to criminals and the mentally ill through theft, the black market or friends and family members. Therefore, unless we allow the government to confiscate them from gun owners, banning them will not have the desired effect.

And why stop at 10? Why not 6? Why not 1? The logical conclusion of any argument to limiting the amount of rounds you can use is to eventually get to 0.

ArthurDayne

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Here's proposal for consideration, in the vein of compromise. A lot of discussion has been made with relation to the capacity of the weapons used recently in these spree killings.

Would posters on here think it favorably to pass legislation that would aim to mandate limited magazine sizes, say 10rds, and perhaps a maximum number by caliber type, 5 for arguments sake. In return, suppressors would be removed from the NFA, making them legal for purchase without requiring a tax stamp?

I think attempting to limit the arsenals people are storing is a huge first step. Though, further to ammo limits, I would also press for a commitment to limit people to no greater amount or capability of actual weapons than is needed. If it is a matter of self-protection, one small standard handgun is surely sufficient. I'm not entirely comfortable even with this -- but I can at the very least see a coherent rationale. I don't think it's how society should seek to address issues of violent crime, but I can see the deterrent to a certain extent.

As for suppressors, the tax stamp rule is a bit inequitable, but I'm really not sure why suppressors are needed. Guns really should only ever be discharged in emergency situations and I think the public interest that guns be heard going off overrides any risk that the sound will cause a public nuisance. Beyond emergency situations, I am sure target ranges can provide the appropriate protective equipment for ears.

My overall stance is, though I am not convinced that the benefits of civilian gun ownership outweigh the dangers, is that if America's fondness for guns is so interwoven into its social fabric then an outright ban is, for now, not the way forward. But by preventing people from owning unnecessary arsenals then at least the sheer amount of lethal weaponry in the country could be gradually reduced and be more controllable. In the context of the fact that almost 2,000 Americans have already died this year at the hands of people using guns (not including suicides), over 400 of whom were under the age of 18, there is a problem and doing nothing to even try to stop is nothing short of insane.

***I would add to this post that by limiting the arsenals which people have, this does include confiscation of existing arsenals. I'm well aware as to how much of a potential minefield this is but surely even proposals for a sensitive, sensible and peaceful approach to this can be mooted and elaborated ***

AbusesToilets

notobtuse wrote: »

No. There are already many millions of 10-plus round magazines currently in circulation in the US. Short of a government confiscation of all these of magazines, they would still be readily available to criminals and the mentally ill through theft, the black market or friends and family members. Therefore, unless we allow the government to confiscate them from gun owners, banning them will not have the desired effect.

And why stop at 10? Why not 6? Why not 1? The logical conclusion of any argument to limiting the amount of rounds you can use is to eventually get to 0.

As others have accused me of here, just because the issue is complicated, shouldn't mean that nothing is done.

AbusesToilets

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I think attempting to limit the arsenals people are storing is a huge first step. Though, further to ammo limits, I would also press for a commitment to limit people to no greater amount or capability of actual weapons than is needed. If it is a matter of self-protection, one small standard handgun is surely sufficient. I'm not entirely comfortable even with this -- but I can at the very least see a coherent rationale. I don't think it's how society should seek to address issues of violent crime, but I can see the deterrent to a certain extent.

As for suppressors, the tax stamp rule is a bit inequitable, but I'm really not sure why suppressors are needed. Guns really should only ever be discharged in emergency situations and I think the public interest that guns be heard going off overrides any risk that the sound will cause a public nuisance. Beyond emergency situations, I am sure target ranges can provide the appropriate protective equipment for ears.

My overall stance is, though I am not convinced that the benefits of civilian gun ownership outweigh the dangers, is that if America's fondness for guns is so interwoven into its social fabric then an outright ban is, for now, not the way forward. But by preventing people from owning unnecessary arsenals then at least the sheer amount of lethal weaponry in the country could be gradually reduced and be more controllable. In the context of the fact that almost 2,000 Americans have already died this year at the hands of people using guns (not including suicides), over 400 of whom were under the age of 18, there is a problem and doing nothing to even try to stop is nothing short of insane.

***I would add to this post that by limiting the arsenals which people have, this does include confiscation of existing arsenals. I'm well aware as to how much of a potential minefield this is but surely even proposals for a sensitive, sensible and peaceful approach to this can be mooted and elaborated ***

To whom would the burden of establishing justifiable need fall upon? How would you balance such an idea against the concept of the 2nd?

Most countries is Europe hold suppressor usage to be a matter of good manners. This Hollywood portrayal of suppressors as tools of assassins, which completely negate any report from the gun is nonsense.

Good luck with your goal of confiscation. I don't say that to be demeaning, you've engaged in a good natured debate here. You have to realise how impractical any concept of confiscation or buy back would be.

ArthurDayne

AbusesToilets wrote: »

To whom would the burden of establishing justifiable need fall upon? How would you balance such an idea against the concept of the 2nd?

Most countries is Europe hold suppressor usage to be a matter of good manners. This Hollywood portrayal of suppressors as tools of assassins, which completely negate any report from the gun is nonsense.

Good luck with your goal of confiscation. I don't say that to be demeaning, you've engaged in a good natured debate here. You have to realise how impractical any concept of confiscation or buy back would be.

I don't think the burden would be overly hard to establish. In almost all cases of self-protection I do not see why anyone would need more than, say, the Army's preferred M9 sidearm. I really must stress that I am not the kind of person who believes that anyone breaking into my house is trying to hurt me or my family, nor do I believe that some 20 year old from a disadvantaged background deserves to die for trying to steal my TV. But if Americans are of the view that they really really really need to be able to use lethal force on intruders or a car hijacker, then why is an M9 or similar pistol not sufficient for that purpose?

I do stress, and always try to stress whenever anyone mentions European gun laws or traditions, that the context is totally different. A quieter gun might keep your neighbours happy, but Europe is not dealing with gun death statistics which come anywhere close to the USA. Guns are being used with murderous or otherwise illegal intent on a much more regular basis in the USA and therefore I think it remains in the American public interest that if guns are going off, people are able to hear them. I do think though that this suppressor issue is somewhat peripheral to the crux of what we are discussing here.

As to the impracticality of confiscation/buy-back, it would only be as impractical as the American people make it. So far, the frustrating thing has been the outright refusal to even consider it -- to even think critically about the amount of guns in the country and the necessity for that. If Americans could weigh up this thought versus the 10,000+ gun deaths per year, then perhaps they could warm to the very sensible approach of trying to make the issue more manageable. As it stands however, this deep-rooted gun-loving ideology, and the almost religious regard which it is given, is preventing America from having a reasoned debate and finding a sensible way forward.

Enzokk

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Most of them started off with groups using what they had to hand at the time, and acquiring more materiel as things progressed. I know from person experience that it doesn't take much to stymie a technologically advanced group, Apache helicopters are not as awesome as Ted would have you believe.

The dual concepts of the 2nd, a protection against tyranny and personal defense, are not mutually exclusive. I'm aware that such an interpretation is a more recent development, but then again so are spree killings of the current ilk.

I don't need my guns because I'm paralyzed by fear. I enjoy shooting, but I also know that criminals could threaten my family, and so I will take necessary steps to give myself an ability to protect them. Would you say a person who prepares for power outages by stocking up on food or water is obsessing out of fear, or taking rational precautions?

I would posit that your examples earlier of conflicts against tyrannical governments does not fit with the current situation in the USA or with a reason to own a gun. I would concede that situations are always fluid what may the case right now could change.

That said in the past 227 years since the 2nd amendment was ratified(?) in the constitution was there ever a time where the government acted like a tyrant that needed to be kept in check by citizens with weapons? How about looking at the other amendments made during that time, one was to do with the government not being allowed to force people to give up their homes to soldiers during peace times. This was in reaction to the revolutionary war, so it could be argued that some of those early amendments are just not fit for purpose in modern times.

As to your question about someone preparing for power outages, I would say anyone preparing for power outages in an area where none has occurred in years it would seem foolish. If you are always having power outages you would be stupid to not prepare in some way for something that is likely to happen.

We are almost talking about chicken and egg stuff here, people will not feel safe because of the amount of weapons out there so they will arm themselves, but their won't be fewer weapons until people give them up. They will not do this because they want to feel safe with so many weapons out there. Chicken and egg, rinse and repeat.

Manic Moran

ArthurDayne wrote: »

This seems to be a common trend of the gun law debates, where the discussion gets mired in technical specifications which to me seem awfully akin to smokescreening the issue.

Well, not really, because the devil really is in the details. It's fine coming up with grand concepts, but those concepts have to be refinable into practical action, and that practical action has to (a) make sense, and (b) be at least arguable in the cost/benefit analysis. This is why we gun owners tend to quibble over the details, because we have to deal with them. It's fine for all the folks I'm seeing online saying "we shouldn't have assault weapons", but when it comes to actually defining them, nobody has as yet managed to do so in a meaningful or successful manner. And I do mean 'nobody', which is why 'assault weapons' are not a category of firearm in any lexicon other than legislative. Over on the shooting forum, it's referred to as an 'idunlikedalookadat' policy, entirely subjective and at the whim of the local super. Not exactly a great way to run a railroad when you're trying to run a non-discretionary legal system, and the courts have generally sided with the gun owners on that. And that's assuming the politicians even listen to the cost/benefit side of the argument such as 'why are items such collapsible stocks or standard capacity magazines even a thing?' Apparently they are purely bad, for often no supportable reason. Seriously. The greatest political minds in the US have tried to define what an 'assault weapon' is. Their best efforts are defeatable in less than three minutes with a screwdriver.

Almost every time some politician comes up with a 'great idea' on gun control, they wave their legislative wand, add a new thing to the books, and those of us on the receiving end have to figure out just -exactly- what it means, because we would like to stay out of jail. Usually it means we have to do something daft, or otherwise inhibit ourselves while the only possible real-world benefit for the gun control folks is that they get a great photo op and talking point for the re-election campaign. So, yes, we go into the details because the only way to try to get people to understand our point of view is to explain it in a supportable manner. Just saying "won't work" or "disagree" isn't going to get anyone very far.

I can’t help but feel that if these now frequent mass murders and attempted mass murders were being perpetrated by terrorist organisations, the American public would be clamoring for action in unison – that appropriate and proportionate measures be taken to try to stop terrorists from operating within the country by both attempting to address the root cause of the issue and depriving terrorists as far as reasonably possible from acquiring with ease the tools they require to inflict mass death or destruction. Let us suppose the last 5 mass shootings in America had been committed by terrorists and the government advocated a stance of doing nothing. It would be unfathomable.

I have no doubt there would be great clamor. And in a total irony, the battle lines would be reversed. Many of the pro-gun chaps (not as many as you might, think, mind) probably would be screaming for "Patriot Act 2: The Sequel, new and improved", whilst many of the anti-gun chaps would be going ape over the trampling of civil rights, due process, and so on. The practical outcome would probably more money for FBI and DHS. So if the gun control equivalent is more money for ATF or HHS, I think we can live with that.

We can talk about Australia, the Czech Republic or Switzerland ad nauseum. But the only thing that matters is context

I agree with that, but the US context also includes some extremely strong legal and practical realities. Other countries do not have these realities, and whilst commentators from across the pond may not truly understand the significant inhibitions to practical action focused on the firearm, those inhibitions exist regardless. For example, the weapon responsible for over 80% of the "tens of thousands of slaughtered Americans", the handgun, is given iron-clad protection for ownership under the law. Indeed, it is the only type of firearm to have such, as shotguns and rifles have not yet been decided upon by the Supreme Court. (Well, sawn-offs shotguns are something of an open question. Miller (1934) defaulted to no protections because nobody showed the court a reason they were militarily useful. Apparently nobody thought to inform the court of WW1 trench gun use, but since Miller was dead by that point, nobody really cared)

Thus our fundamental startpoint from the pro-gun side is that if we cannot do anything about the weapon causing 80% of the trouble (even if we wished to deprive ourselves of a very useful firearm), both due to the legal protections and the fact that we're currently selling about four million of them a year, so good luck actually getting them out of people's hands in any meaningful amount, we need to focus on something other than the weapon. That our politicians have thus far managed to fail miserably to successfully do something about the society which is resulting in all our problems doesn't mean that we should give them cart blanche to do something meaningless instead just because they seem willing to do it.

- If self-protection is the issue, can Americans not simply carry a single handgun with a limited and regulated amount of ammo? I don’t think it’s ideal and still leaves scope for murderers to get their hands on weapons but, in the interest of eventually reducing the absurd number of guns in the States and at the very least helping to create a more controllable gun-universe, is this not a valid compromise? If not, why not?

Given that most of our problems are caused by handguns, what is this going to achieve? And it's not as if you can't slaughter dozens of folks with a pistol, it's been done. How do you propose to regulate the ammunition, especially given the prevalence of reloading as a subset of the shooting hobby? We do retain the 4th Amendment, so it's not as if random checks will be permitted (And this pesky little right, much cherished, is going to interfere with the effective enforcement on any ban or restriction on anything). There are also arguments for both rifles and shotguns actually being better for the self-protection role in the house if you know what you are doing, though obviously much less so in public.

- If you like hunting, fair enough. I’ll not get into a debate on the merits or necessity of that activity right now but, even if we assume that it’s perfectly fine, does the right to bear arms in the interests of hunting really need constitutional protection? I don’t see how repealing the 2nd Amendment should serve to prevent hunters from owning and using a hunting rifle.

Seven states specify 'hunting' as a reason in their constitutions (plus one which says only 'any lawful purpose', Utah). Over 40 have a right to arms in their constitutions, most specifying the right to the individual separate from any militia waffle, and given that repealing the 2nd will require the votes of 38 States, I would not be placing any money at all on the 2nd being repealed. Frankly, there is more chance of it being modified to match the trend of the States. (The most recent arms-related State constitutional Amendment was 1998, Wyoming, which changed from "The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied" of 1889 to "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose"). There was a spate of changes in the 1990s when the anti-gun movement started taking hold.
Within the boundaries of a State, the State constitution has as much force as the Constitution of Ireland does in Ireland whilst being subordinate to the EU. So, yep, hunting.

There is also the matter that 'defense of self' mentioned in most others can also include 'defense from bears, mountain lions, wolves, alligators, badgers, ferrets, or particularly aggressive possums'. There are parts of the country where it is strongly recommended that you bring along a rifle, preferably something a tad more powerful than a bog-standard AR-15, which will probably just annoy a Grizzly.

Personally I don't hunt.

- As for the rise of a tyrannical government (and I am at pains to even treat this one with any seriousness, but it has been cited), your government already has the most powerful military on the planet, with global bases and capability of launching aircraft from any of its naval carries or international airbases. It would be an utter massacre.

Although I do not use the argument myself, as I don't believe it necessary, and discounting the fact that the principle is no less valid no matter the practical reality, as a member of the most powerful military on the planet, with a couple of deployments under my belt chasing, generally unsuccessfully, after illiterate folks wearing flip-flops on mopeds with assault rifles, I have absolutely no doubt that, in the unlikely event the federal military is ordered against the citizenry (which is generally illegal anyway), and that the members of the military choose to go along with it, the armed citizenry could cause very great annoyance. We have about fifteen recent years of evidence to show this. However, I would think the chances of the military going along is very slim.

Such armed resistance to the government authorities has generally been along the local level, such as in the civil rights era, or the 'Battle of Athens' back in '48. For example, in 2014 and in 2016, Cliven Bundy and his son objected to certain actions by federal authorities, and they backed up their objection by force of arms resulting in lengthy stand-offs. Although the Bundys were wrong in their objection, the fact that they were sent home free by the judge after their armed standoff has turned them into something of a figurehead for the groups which advocate the abilities for armed resistance.

The overall question is : in the context of the killing of tens of thousands of Americans every year, and the terrifying sub-context of innocent people being subjected mass shootings, can Americans really not see the value of making some first steps to properly address this problem rather than dance around it with ‘mming and aahing’ over how difficult it would be or engaging in faux-patriotic theatrics? The first steps are taking real and decisive action to reduce the number of weapons in the country and creating a more controllable environment. Sitting around waiting for a solution which will end all violent crime is an exercise of extreme and dangerous procrastination. There is a murder problem in America and guns are supplementing that problem - it's a huge issue and it may take years to address effectively - but doing nothing will solve nothing.

The counterargument, though, is that 'taking real and decisive action to reduce the number of weapons' is even more difficult than enacting a solution which will end all violent crime, due to all the aforementioned legal issues and the sheer number of weapons in question. People looking for a simple answer may not want to hear it, but that doesn't deny it. Plus, if we ever do get a handle on the sociological issues which are responsible for violent crime, we'll probably end up solving more than just the death toll from firearms. Better yet, there is neither legal nor particular political opposition to the idea. And, we also have evidence in other countries that possession of firearms does not automatically equate to violence on the streets. So, instead of screaming at our politicians to do something about the guns, why not scream at them to do something that they should be doing anyway, guns or no guns? Instead, we're devoting all our efforts at one half of the politicians to restrict guns, the other half to keep them, and in the meantime, society's issues continue unattended.

Mellor

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It's a recent mechanical invention designed to circumnavigate the entirely reasonable restriction on citizens accessing select fire weapons, at least without the extensive and incredibly expensive process involved to do so legally.

I understand exactly what a bump stock is. But I have no idea how you think the above description equates to an anachronism.

Anachronism: A person or thing which seems to belong to a different period of time.

A bumpstock in a WW2 movie would be an anachronism. A bump stock used in a mass shooting in 2017 is exactly the period to which it belongs.

Leroy42

It is always interesting to hear the gun advocates call for restraint and a lack of calling for outright bans.

This is the same country that launched a war against Iraq based on nothing more than a want to hit back at something. A country that was happy to elect a man that tried to ban all muslims from entering (or reentering) the country because of a few attacks. A country that wants to spend billions of dollars building a wall which many people believe will do little for the issues it is attempting to fix.

But its all about a restrained approach to gun control. Lets not overreacted, it only 17 kids this time, and sure whatever we do won't solve everything so best just to leave it as I don't want to give up my guns.

The US has a very real crisis on its hands. Had the NRA not gone with the approach of stopping all research into this area then maybe would not be in the lack of information zone. But that was their wish. So they can hardly complain when people advocate some measures and don't have the detail to prove it will work.

Would it be hard to achieve, yes. Is it harder than having to bury your child, I really doubt it.

This is not an isolated case, the next one is a matter of when and how many, not if. Would it stop the determined, no probably not, but would you like the military to/FBI to take that approach to security? Should all laws be gotten rid off because some people still break them.

Could we invoke an increase review of mental health at the same time? Yes of course, the two are not exclusive.

But try to deal with the source of the problem, you know like not allowing liquids of sharp objects on planes. Why should I have to give up my bottle of coke just because some mad man wants to blow up a plane? I'm a responsible person, why am I being inconvenienced?

You want to keep the right the bear arms, fine, limit them all to standard size, standard ammunition, low capacity magazines. Pass a law to allow for the buy-back of all non-regulated guns. Give gun clubs incentives to open and give them clear guidelines including storage and leasing of weapons.

Will it take away your current rights, absolutely. Will be end up, over time, reducing the number of mass shootings? All the current evidence suggests that yes it will (Australia etc). Are your rights more important than someones life, no.

AbusesToilets

Mellor wrote: »

I understand exactly what a bump stock is. But I have no idea how you think the above description equates to an anachronism.

Anachronism: A person or thing which seems to belong to a different period of time.

A bumpstock in a WW2 movie would be an anachronism. A bump stock used in a mass shooting in 2017 is exactly the period to which it belongs.

You are correct, I misused that word.

Mellor

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Here's proposal for consideration, in the vein of compromise. A lot of discussion has been made with relation to the capacity of the weapons used recently in these spree killings.

Would posters on here think it favorably to pass legislation that would aim to mandate limited magazine sizes, say 10rds, and perhaps a maximum number by caliber type, 5 for arguments sake. In return, suppressors would be removed from the NFA, making them legal for purchase without requiring a tax stamp?

Suppressors should be availible to anyone that has a valid reason for one.
Acting out movie fantasies like Walter Mitty is not a valid reason.

5 by caliber type is a lot of guns given the number of common calibers. I'd bevthink more along the lines of 2 per purpose (twice as many as you'd get in Ireland)

ArthurDayne

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, not really, because the devil really is in the details. It's fine coming up with grand concepts, but those concepts have to be refinable into practical action, and that practical action has to (a) make sense, and (b) be at least arguable in the cost/benefit analysis.
(…)

Apologies – just cutting your post down to the above quote in the interests of brevity but hopefully I cover most of the points you made in the full message. Anyway . . .

The problem is though is that this ‘devil in the detail’ is being used to suggest that the proliferation of guns in the United States has simply gone so far that it can never be stymied or reversed. It always surprises me that, when it comes to guns, Americans tend to forego the very things they pride about their nation. The speak of the safety of their people, calling for decisive and sometimes wildly drastic action when terrorists strike – but when it comes to the evidently more pressing problem of 10,000+ gun killings per year, decisive action is simply viewed as too complicated to even be conceptualised never mind implemented. One of my all-time favourite quotes came from a JFK speech where he said ‘We do these things not because they are easy but because they are hard’. It was a spine-tingling statement of America’s ambition to send men to set foot in the heavens – it was the epitome of the ethic which made the USA the most powerful nation in history. And yet this nation suddenly becomes a rabbit in the headlights at the reality of the mass slaughter of its citzens and does absolutely nothing to even explore the possibility of tackling the issue – because it is mired in ideology and obfuscated in technical detail to make it seem impossible when really it is not. Nobody denies the practical difficulties of getting Americans to give up their stockpiles – but it’s the ideology which forms the biggest part of those practical difficulties while the technicalities, though significant, are surmountable. Ideologies can change – but people have to be open to having those ideologies challenged. From what I have seen, the pro-gun lobby remains so ideologically entrenched in devotion to the Second Amendment that they are failing to see reason.

I totally agree with you on the handgun issue but this side of my argument has only ever been an attempt at an ideological compromise on my own part; a step towards first drastically the amount of firearms in civilian possession so that, at the very least, the gun universe in America is easier to monitor and regulate more effectively. ‘Effectively’ is the key word in this. Take Chicago for example, oft-cited as an unwitting champion for the inefficacy of stricter gun laws – I recently posted a link to an academic study (happy to re-post if you want to read) which found that 60% of guns used in Chicago gangland violence were originally purchased in neighbouring Indiana and Wisconsin where gun laws are more lenient, thus rendering Illinois’ efforts somewhat limp. So there are very real and reasonable grounds for suggesting that a reduction in weaponry at the civilian level across all states, thus enhanced traceability of pistols, along with only providing limited amounts of ammunition being provided to civilians, could help in addressing that 60% in Chicago at the very least. The passage of time would surely see a gradual reduction of the amount of guns and ammunition flowing into the city. It will not end gangland violence – it will not end murder – and it will be difficult at first. But crucially it would assist in limiting the scope for gangs to get their hands on the weapons which make killing easiest ---- guns. Chicago is just one example of course – but an illustrative one in my view.

I absolutely agree that initiatives on mental health and deprivation need to be given full consideration and the necessary resources. I’m not sure if any credible person on either side of the debate is saying otherwise. But I continue to maintain that until America can unlock the secret to curing its social ills, it needs to ensure that dangerous people have as much difficulty as possible in getting their hands on guns. So far, America’s failure to do this has been so utterly spectacular that the failure to even take initial remedial steps is both dumbfounding and infuriating.

I mean, what is the end game here for the pro-gun lobby? Are we to forever flood America with more and more weaponry to the point that, never mind the rise of a tyrannical government or a gang member stealing your wallet, every American will live in fear of all the other folk down the street who have enough guns and bullets to wipe out the entire town? This ‘nuclear deterrent’ approach to community relations is dangerous and contrary to the healthy functioning of the rule of law. It isn’t working in America and, most astoundingly of all, the self-styled standard-bearer of Western civilization is just limply accepting the fact that tens of thousands of its people are statistically condemned to die by the end of this year at the wrong end of a gun.

notobtuse

Some good news, for some… Remington Arms, manufacturers of firearms, is in serious financial trouble and has reached an agreement to file for bankruptcy protection. They blame their need to file for bankruptcy because of Donald Trump. According to Remington, Trump’s talk about protecting Second Amendment rights has had the effect that people aren’t in as much of a rush to run out and buy firearms as they did under Obama. Because now people are not worried that the government will be coming to take their guns away.

AbusesToilets

Mellor wrote: »

Suppressors should be availible to anyone that has a valid reason for one.
Acting out movie fantasies like Walter Mitty is not a valid reason.

5 by caliber type is a lot of guns given the number of common calibers. I'd bevthink more along the lines of 2 per purpose (twice as many as you'd get in Ireland)

Noise reduction and hearing safety are pretty valid concerns to me. Bearing in mind a suppressor typically only reduces the decibel level of a gunshot from approx 180 to 150s. Still very loud.

I would disagree with you on an acceptable number of magazines.

Hitman3000

AbusesToilets wrote:

Noise reduction and hearing safety are pretty valid concerns to me. Bearing in mind a suppressor typically only reduces the decibel level of a gunshot from approx 180 to 150s. Still very loud.

Ear muffs.
Personally the louder the gunshot the better gives potential victims a chance to hide or get away.

Leroy42

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Noise reduction and hearing safety are pretty valid concerns to me. Bearing in mind a suppressor typically only reduces the decibel level of a gunshot from approx 180 to 150s. Still very loud.

I would disagree with you on an acceptable number of magazines.

Where are people firing these guns that they are worried about noise? Target practice or hunting can easily be dealt with with ear protectors, and if its house security then is lack of noise really an issue?

Ammunition should of course be limited, and luckily there is no 2nd amendment worries. This could be brought in tomorrow. I fail to see why there needs to be large magazines. None of the reasons you have quoted for the need for guns requires large magazines

BorneTobyWilde

Classrooms that can be locked from the inside is a must, maybe they can be already? Seems crazy if it's not the case.
Need to raise age one can buy those AR 15 type guns to 25, would make sense.

Hitman3000

Leroy42 wrote:

Ammunition should of course be limited, and luckily there is no 2nd amendment worries. This could be brought in tomorrow. I fail to see why there needs to be large magazines. None of the reasons you have quoted for the need for guns requires large magazines

Slap a 10 dollar tax on each bullet at the POS would go a long way to cutting down the carnage.