Gun control in the USA

rockonollie wrote: »

Also, it's worth pointing out, as a counter argument to the unwavering supporters of the "right to bear arms", when that' right was put in writing, an experienced person with a gun could shoot and get off a second shot about 30 seconds later......now you can fire 50-60 shots in that time.

and they would have to be very experienced to reach that level of competence.
The 2nd Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791 - the main weapon available at the time is what is known as the Charleville Musket (French made) although in 1795 the Springfield Armoury did start producing muskets (245 in that year).

The Charleville musket required the operator to first rotate the hinged cock handle (which holds the flint) to a half-cock position to prevent accidental discharge while loading. To load the weapon from the muzzle the gun was held vertically with the buttstock on the ground. A small amount of gunpowder was inserted down the barrel, followed by the shot (a hand casted lead ball) - this was usually wrapped in a piece of cloth or paper as barrels were not yet rifled to provide spin. The operator then had to ram the shot down with the ramrod until it was in position.
The gun was then moved to a horizontal position to allow powder to be put in the flashpan. The flashpan lid (or frizzen) was then set to full-cock and the weapon could now be fired by pulling the trigger.
If the power was of the correct consistency (too coarse/too fine not good) and dry, the correct amount as inserted into both muzzle and flashpan and the shot fully rammed in (and the ramrod removed - a common error) then all was a-ok - unless the moving parts hadn't been well maintained...

Those are the typical 'arms' referred to - not weapons capable of rabid fire using high velocity bullets which are often modified to cause maximum internal damage.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Those are the typical 'arms' referred to - not weapons capable of rabid fire using high velocity bullets which are often modified to cause maximum internal damage.

Heck even for our air rifle we can get pellets that are specifically designed to cause more damage.

Blay wrote: »

I think a visual explanation of the last Assault Weapons Ban in the US would be useful here;

This is a AR15 that you can buy in the US right now, if you pass a background check etc;


This is an AR15 you could buy under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban which Bill Clinton implemented;



It functions in the same manner as the one above it, the larger magazines were restricted for new sales during the ban but you could still purchase existing ones privately. If Obama signs a new ban, it's likely that the rifle in the bottom picture will still be available for sale from a dealer...that was what made the Clinton ban ridiculous...the only difference in those two rifles is that the stock doesn't collapse, there's no flash hider or bayonet lug...the rifles still functions the same, so if Obama signed a ban which was basically a copy of the Clinton version then s/a rifles like these would still be out there.

and this is a Charleville musket - the most common gun when the 2nd Amendment was enacted



This is what they meant.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This is what they meant.

Do you think they were following some kind of Amish creed and advocating that the US suspend any technological improvement, because that clearly is a stretch.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

When you extract the data just for the US (89 incidents, out of the 117 on the wiki page) you get 519 deaths. 850/310*519/573 ~ 2.5. So not a big difference to what Robindch calculated.

Incidentally, these wikipages don't include school place or work place rampages, so I looked at these (they are single world wide tables, so I separated out the US and Europe and added the deaths):

Schoolplace: US has 18 incidents, 182 deaths. Europe has 15 incidents, 108 deaths
850/310*182/108 = 4.62 as many deaths in school massacres in the US.

Workplace:US has 20 incidents, 138 deaths. Europe has 4 incidents, 23 deaths
850/310*138/23 = 16.45 as many deaths in disgruntled workplace massacres in the US.

And as wikipedia separated out Breivik and other 'poitically motivated' rampages you are missing at least 75 deaths from your figures, as well as further 3 European incidents with a total death toll of 75+7+7+34 = 123 deaths.

But here lies the rub, and you did not answer my question about why count deaths rather than incidents. Leaving aside the "high-score' mentality in rampage killers, surely in trying to understand the prevalence of this event it makes more sense to count the number of shooters, not the numbers of victims.

And, as Robindch said, none of these are corrected for social conditions or change in population over time. You can also do this for the number of incidents of each type (ie the US's 89 incidents scale up to 244, when you correct for the population difference, making them ~ 2.5 times more likely to have an incident than Europe), but the idea is the same.

What population factor are you using, because the population of Europe is (being lazy and asking google) 739,165,030 and the US 311,591,917 which equals a scaling factor of 2.37 not the 2.75 you used above.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Wow, being on the A&A forum, I've seen some really forced misinterpretations of posts, but this level, if honest, would have to imply that you are both illiterate and innumerate.

Wow. Patronising much?

Seeing as i specifically explains the maths in plain English. My last paragraph specifically explains that the number of incidents of all types, when corrected for the fact that the US has just over a third the population of Europe, is much higher than Europe.

Can I have a source for your assertion that the US has "just over a third the population of Europe" The US is fairly easily defined, Europe not so much, so before I accuse you of being "illiterate and innumerate" could you show how you arrive at this scaling figure please.

To just make sure you understand, the US has 2.5 TIMES as many rampage incidents (so 150% more than Europe), 3.3 TIMES as many school based incidents (230% more than Europe) and 13.75 TIMES as many workplace incidents (1275% more than Europe).

Based on a scaling factor that so far seems to be your own.

Also, seeing as a lot of posters are arguing that gun control will also make rampagers less effective at killing, pointing the higher number of deaths (higher, even when we account for the higher number of incidents in the US) is relevant.

That's a different argument, as it is clear that gun control didn't make individual rampage killers in Germany or Norway less 'effective'. As you have left 123 deaths out of the mix as 'political' deaths, the picture is muddied.

I copied the tables into excel, deleted the non US countries and just added the number of deaths and counted the number of incidents. Europe has ~2.75 the population of the US, so you multiply the number of US incidents to compare to Europe stats. I assumed that was obvious. My mistake.

A simple source for your 2.75 will sort that out.

I'm on my phone now, I can throw up the excel sheet this evening, if you really need the help with your maths.

I'm simply asking for a factor of your calculations that you saw fit not to include, so absolutely no need for the sneering tone.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ben Franklin was good - he wasn't that good.

But since you bring him up he was a man of science, do you think he would have approved of freezing technology at such a point in time?

Since you ask how they felt, let's ask them.

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

George Washington wrote:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."

Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed"

Thomas Jefferson

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You really are reaching now.

Says the person who somehow seems to think that a frozen-in-time technology was the intent of the writers of the second amendment. I mean, come on, what rational reason would they have for believing such a thing.

All we can do is look at their words and try and understand their intention - you may have noticed Robin has referred to it once or twice.

Or better; ask the Supreme Court for their interpretation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Did they foresee a Federal Military -No.

You think they could not grasp such a concept?? Or the potential abuse of it.
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
Patrick Henry

See the Jefferson quote below about the nation being defended by National Government.

For a long time to come, it will not be possible to maintain a large army; and as the means of doing this increase, the population and natural strength of the community will proportionably increase.

James Madison

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.

James Madison

Did they foresee the concept of Manifest Destiny - No.

They most certainly did.

However, in the midst of what subsequently came to be referred to as “the Great Awakening” (but at the time was considered an extra-ordinary outpouring of God’s saving grace) that spread across New England and the other British colonies in the 1740s, the idea that God had chosen America for a special destiny was resurrected in a new form. In the midst of the Awakening, the great New England theologian and revivalist, Jonathan Edwards wrote that “the latter day glory” in short, the Millennium, the “end times” that would bring the second coming of Christ to earth and spread of the King of God across the world, would begin in America. “It is not likely that this work of God’s spirit [the revivals] so extraordinary and wonderful,” Edwards asserted, “is the dawning, or at least a prelude of that glorious work of God, so often foretold in scripture, which in the progress and issue of it, shall renew the world of mankind.”

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/nineteen/nkeyinfo/mandestiny.htm

A tiny bit later but still very early 19th Century quote. John Quincy Adams wasn't being a complete loon when he said in 1811.

The whole continent of North America appears to be destined by Divine Providence to be peopled by one nation, speaking one language, professing one general system of religious and political principles, and accustomed to one general tenor of social usages and customs. For the common happiness of them all, for their peace and prosperity, I believe it is indispensable that they should be associated in one federal Union.

Did they foresee the US as a country that involved itself in the internal affairs of other sovereign states - No.

As one disentangling itself from the interference of three others, perhaps not. But what does this have to do with the way the US currently manages its internal affairs?

Did they foresee the Monroe Doctrine - No.

"The way to have safe government is not to trust it all to the one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to everyone exactly the functions in which he is competent....To let the National Government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations..... The State Governments with the Civil Rights, Laws, Police and administration of what concerns the State generally. The Counties with the local concerns, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these Republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations until it ends in the administration of everyman's farm by himself, by placing under everyone what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best."

Did they foresee technological advancements - No.

Oh please. Such nonsense.

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.

Ben Franklin

They also did not foresee the abolition of Slavery - especially Jefferson the slave owner....

John Wesley was preaching in America and campaigning for abolition in 1734. The first slave legal case freed a slave in England in 1772, and launched the British movement to abolish slavery. They would certainly have aware of such events.

or Universal Franchise.

Now you are stretching, give them a break - Women's suffrage in Switzerland didn't begin until 1971 ffs.

Perhaps you would like Robin to walk you through their intent in writing the 2nd Amendment - again. You do seem to be having trouble understanding the difference between a legally constituted militia and an individual with an assault rifle.

Ah yes. Intent. So easy to read.

Let me leave you with a Lincoln quote for variety:

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."

-- Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861

The US, whether you like it or not, likes to hold on to a constitution that maintains Lincoln's "revolutionary right" to overthrow the Government.

You may not like it, but you cannot deny it with quibbles about intent, if you wish to change it, both democratic and revolutionary options are open to the citizenry.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Are you for real?

Yes, tell me how these shooters 'modify' ammunition to make it more deadly.

Blay wrote: »

Yes, tell me how these shooters 'modify' ammunition to make it more deadly.

It's not a secret of the perpitrators of mass shootings.......originally bullets were just a lead ball, move forward a hundred years and they were still, in effect, a rounded piece of lead.

But there are modified version of the standard lead bullet, such as hollow points that are specifically designed to expand after entering a target to do more internal damage.

MadsL wrote: »

Ah, clearly misunderstood you when you went on a rant about what the founding fathers meant and posted a list of how they couldn't comprehend the future or how they didn't mean this type or that type of bang stick. I'm pretty sure they founding fathers would have been delighted to see advances in weapons technology at the time. Would you disagree?

Now that your list of thefounding fathers inabilities to think has been roundly shown to be complete nonsense by quoting the words of the founding fathers themselves, you now find some reason to take offence and climb to some imagined moral high-ground.

Very well, off you go. A shame as you are normally a quite level headed poster.

As least I have not had to resort to complete misrepresentation of what people say to further my argument. Nor adopt a patronizing and sneering tone.
But then I do not find myself in the unenviable position of being a bedfellow with the fundamentalist Christian Right - perhaps that is why you have to resort to their tactics?

I did not say anyone was anti-technology - I said there was no way they could predict technological advances and therefore had to write within the context of their time making reference to the available technology and the socio-political dynamic of creating a State that was, itself a socio-economic experiment and far from secure.

But you claim they would approve current US gun laws so perhaps you will explain where in this 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' it indicates the right of the citizen as an individual to have weapons undreamt of at the time for personal use they being neither well regulated or acting for the security of a free State?

You will notice the use of their phrase 'well regulated'...

Blay wrote: »

I've 50 rounds of hollow point ammunition in my safe as we speak so I know what it is:pac: But buying a box of them isn't modifying them...thats the form in which they're produced. If you buy a car fresh off the manufacturing line with alloys do you call them modifications?

The poster stated these high velocity bullets were 'modified' i.e. changed so as different from the form in which they were produced. A hollow point is made with a hollow, for the poster to be correct one would have to put one into a non hollow pointed round.

This has absolutely no relevance at all but I'm just bored on a train so I'm indulging in some nitpicking.

Oh dear, oh dear...
Where did I say they were modified after production?

The original shot as known to the writers of the 2nd Amendment was a simple lead ball. Do you deny there have been modifications to the design since then which increased their damage capabilities?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Oh dear, oh dear...
Where did I say they were modified after production?

The original shot as known to the writers of the 2nd Amendment was a simple lead ball. Do you deny there have been modifications to the design since then which increased their damage capabilities?

If it comes off the production line then it's not a modification is it? There is no singular definition of what exactly a 'bullet' consists of so therefore all of its various incarnations are not modifications but simply 'bullets'.

We're not debating the founding fathers though, we're talking about the nature of ammunition in todays world:)