Gun control in the USA

magicbastarder · 26-03-2013 07:18PM

anyway sparks, i know your interest is target shooting. are you arguing that you should also be able to own a 'general' handgun, without too much oversight from the government?

MadsL · 26-03-2013 07:20PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

anyway sparks, i know your interest is target shooting. are you arguing that you should also be able to own a 'general' handgun, without too much oversight from the government?

Are handguns unable to shoot at targets or something?

magicbastarder · 26-03-2013 07:22PM

well, i understand there is a difference between a gun used in the sport of target shooting, of which sparks is a practitioner, and say a glock 9, which is not 'legal' in such activities.

Witcher · 26-03-2013 07:24PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

you seem to be conflating 'ability to break the law by killing one's own mother' and 'ability to gain possession of an assault rifle'.
if assault rifles are particularly hard to come by to begin with, it probably doesn't matter how many family members you kill, you're not going to get your hands on a rapid fire military grade weapon.

when there are lax regulations on sale of such weapons, the gun dealer who sold the weapon can shrug his shoulders and point out that he broke no laws. if you're selling guns illegally, you've an interest in not selling weapons to nutjobs who will bring all sorts of police interest down on you.

An AR15 is not an assault rifle. The term military grade is another ridiculous term, almost every firearm is 'military grade'.

Remington 700 bolt action is used by armies worldwide so you'd have to class that as military grade too.

Ruger 10/22..used by the Israeli Defence Forces..'military grade'?

The Short Magazine Lee Enfield, a rifle designed nearly a century ago and used in the two world wars is 'military grade' but is used almost exclusively by civilians now. Short using buzzwords you licked off the ground.

Witcher · 26-03-2013 07:24PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

well, i understand there is a difference between a gun used in the sport of target shooting, of which sparks is a practitioner, and say a glock 9, which is not 'legal' in such activities.

Yeah, definitely..but mostly because a Glock 9 doesn't even exist.

Centrefire pistols are 'legal' for target shooting..they're used worldwide. Including Ireland.

Sparks · 26-03-2013 07:25PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

you seem to be conflating 'ability to break the law by killing one's own mother' and 'ability to gain possession of an assault rifle'.

Okay, first off stop being so loose with your terminology please - "assault rifle" is a defined term with a defined meaning; one was not used in this case; and they are already very heavily controlled in both the US and the EU and in most of the rest of the world as well.

Secondly, I'm not confusing the two concepts at all, I'm making the point that when someone is so set on breaking a law that they'll kill their own family to do so, then a line of text on a piece of paper is not going to prove a major obstacle to such a person, and you require someone else to physically stop them.

In other words, you need to enforce the law.

But if you had just enforced the laws as they were written on the day of the event, the vast majority of these mass shootings would never have occurred, and not just in the US. Port Arthur, Hungerford, Dunblane, all of these only transpired because the law was not enforced; writing new laws does nothing to stop them and does nothing to prevent future tragedies. That's the fundamental flaw in the argument that we need to bring in new laws to stop these things from happening and it's why those new laws simply will not work, and it's why those new laws have never worked in the past.

magicbastarder · 26-03-2013 07:28PM

okay, i'll stop using terms which are probably incorrect by technical definitions used within gun circles (but are generally used by joe soap). you can correct me when i stray - let us use 'derived from military weaponry' instead of 'military grade', maybe?

from a quick look at wikipedia, i understand the AR15 is not an assault rifle because it's not switchable to full auto?

magicbastarder · 26-03-2013 07:31PM

Sparks wrote: »

But if you had just enforced the laws as they were written on the day of the event

you phrase this as if it were a breakdown in law enforcement - do you mean in that he murdered his mother?

i'm just trying to draw a distinction between a law not being enforced being an 'enabler' vs. an enforced law understandably not being able to prevent all crime.

Sparks · 26-03-2013 07:31PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

anyway sparks, i know your interest is target shooting. are you arguing that you should also be able to own a 'general' handgun, without too much oversight from the government?

Define general in that context, in legal language, if you can.
I tried it once for fun, and it's damn near impossible to legally define a pistol which is just used for target shooting (actually, I think it is impossible, but I'm not a lawyer so I'm leaving room in case there's a legislative genius out there who could do it).

Witcher · 26-03-2013 07:33PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

okay, i'll stop using terms which are probably incorrect by technical definitions used within gun circles (but are generally used by joe soap). you can correct me when i stray - let us use 'derived from military weaponry' instead of 'military grade', maybe?

from a quick look at wikipedia, i understand the AR15 is not an assault rifle because it's not switchable to full auto?

Yeah derived from it would be correct but the fact it looks like a rifle used by the military doesn't make it more dangerous. Compare an AR15 and a sporter semi auto .223(I can't think of any models atm)..they both fire exactly the same round, just as quickly but the AR15 is always latched onto because of how it looks..not because it's more dangerous. The myth that's it somehow dangerous has been disseminated by those with an axe to grind with shooters/the firearms industry and the public and fence sitters just go with it because they don't know any better.

That's correct too.

magicbastarder · 26-03-2013 07:35PM

well, i think most people would be happy with defining a regulation target shooting pistol as specialist, and probably a bit more unwieldy than a semi-automatic pistol, like one of these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock

and i'm not going to try to define it in a legal context, we're having a debate for our entertainment, not trying to write laws.

robindch · 26-03-2013 07:38PM

Sparks wrote: »

We don't ban cars though, we just make it a crime to drive recklessly, have licencing and testing and age limits before you can drive on public roads, and require insurance.

Would be interesting to have insurance for guns, so that if and when somebody was injured or murdered by one, or something was damaged, there'd be some comeback.

However, in the US, there's no requirement to insure a weapon and lawmakers who've attempted to introduce such insurance have run into strong, well-financed opposition from the NRA who claim that such insurance is "economically discriminatory" (ie, raises the cost of guns, so lowers the NRA's manufacturer/seller member profits).

In the absence of insurance, since 2005 and the passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, victims of gun violence (or their heirs) can neither sue the gun seller, nor the gun manufacturer for any damage, injury or death caused by the weapons they sell. The NRA heaped fulsome praise upon Mr Bush for signing such a wide-ranging liability-avoidance law (which obviously lowers the cost of guns, so raises the NRA manufacturer/seller member profits)

Witcher · 26-03-2013 07:38PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

well, i think most people would be happy with defining a regulation target shooting pistol as specialist, and probably a bit more unwieldy than a semi-automatic pistol, like one of these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock

and i'm not going to try to define it in a legal context, we're having a debate for our entertainment, not trying to write laws.

You can't define a target pistol because there are so many different types of target shooting involving pistols that all demand their own unique designs. You couldn't shoot WA1500 with an air pistol or rimfire and vice versa.

magicbastarder · 26-03-2013 07:38PM

Blay wrote: »

Yeah derived from it would be correct but the fact it looks like a rifle used by the military doesn't make it more dangerous. Compare an AR15 and a sporter semi auto .223(I can't think of any models atm)..they both fire exactly the same round, just as quickly but the AR15 is always latched onto because of how it looks..not because it's more dangerous. The myth that's it somehow dangerous has been disseminated by those with an axe to grind with shooters/the firearms industry and the public and fence sitters just go with it because they don't know any better.

That's correct too.

what's the max fire rate of an AR15, and max capacity of the cartridge,
as compared to a sporting .223?

if the AR15 is 'one trigger pull, one shot', maybe 120, 200 rounds per minute?

Sparks · 26-03-2013 07:39PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

you phrase this as if it were a breakdown in law enforcement - do you mean in that he murdered his mother?

Yes, and then proceeded to go from that house to the school in possession of a firearm he wasn't legally allowed to possess and then enter a school and shoot students and teachers. I agree, stopping his mothers murder would be nearly impossible (though there's enough of a question regarding the ease with which the firearm was available there given the prohibitions on firearms ownership by the mentally ill, but that's arguable at best); however armed guards at the school, as has been suggested as a measure in the aftermath of many school shootings, would have had a much better chance of stopping it.

In other cases, however, enforcement of the existing laws would have stopped shootings long before they happened. Dunblane famously saw the police overriding written testimony by police officers calling for Hamilton's firearms to be taken off him in order to renew his licence. Enforcement there would have prevented Dunblane a year in advance. Port Arthur happened because of an illegal firearms sale; and Hungerford saw neighbours ignore Ryan shooting at them weeks in advance, and his employer ignore him turning up to work armed.

I just do not understand what it is thought a new law will gain anyone if every other law on the books is so poorly followed, despite them being more than sufficient to have prevented the event prompting the new law had they just been enforced as written.

Sparks · 26-03-2013 07:42PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

what's the max fire rate of an AR15, and max capacity of the cartridge,
as compared to a sporting .223?

Approximately the same.
Your average foxhunting .223 rifle and an AR-15 model rifle fire the same round, can have the same size magazine (it varies from rifle to rifle, obviously) and can fire at the same rate.

120 to 200 rpm though.... er, no. Maybe 40-60 if you really trained to do it and weren't terribly picky about hitting a target. And you couldn't do it for a full minute because you'd overheat and damage the barrel after the first few shots.

Witcher · 26-03-2013 07:45PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

what's the max fire rate of an AR15, and max capacity of the cartridge,
as compared to a sporting .223?

if the AR15 is 'one trigger pull, one shot', maybe 120, 200 rounds per minute?

Any semi auto firearm will fire at the same rate as an AR15, you could get a 10/22 firing just as fast as it but even with the recoil of a .22 you will move off target firing at any sort of speed.

Mag capacity depends on the rifle, I can't think of the names of any sporter .223's off the top of my head but ya can get them with 30 round mags just like an AR15, by sporter I mean any rifle that doesn't look like an AR15/AK/G3 etc.

M1 Carbines, Ruger Mini 14's etc. would all be considered more acceptable because they're not black and they have a bit of wood on them.

Sparks · 26-03-2013 07:47PM

robindch wrote: »

Would be interesting to have insurance for guns, so that if and when somebody was injured or murdered by one, or something was damaged, there'd be some comeback.

(a) there is insurance for firearms in every country I've ever looked at including Ireland;
(b) I'm reasonably sure that insurance does not pay out for damages caused by illegal acts and so it's not possible for me to take out insurance that will pay out if I murder someone.

However, in the US, there's no requirement to insure a weapon

Correct; nor is there such a law here as a precondition for firearms ownership (it's just that it's practically impossible to be in target shooting without being covered by insurance). But remember that in the US, the law is different in that having a firearm for self-defence is permitted (you can't get a firearm for that purpose in Ireland) and so having an economic hurdle to own one isn't legal (because that'd be like saying that only the rich can have an effective means of self-defence).

Witcher · 26-03-2013 07:57PM

For an idea of what politicians see as 'evil' about the AR15..have a look at Clinton's Federal Assault Weapons Ban..it outlawed flash hiders, bayonet lugs and collapsible stocks etc.

AR15 with the evil bits;

AR15 with them removed and approved A-ok by the US government to buy even during the assault weapons ban;

Sparks · 26-03-2013 07:59PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

well, i think most people would be happy with defining a regulation target shooting pistol as specialist, and probably a bit more unwieldy than a semi-automatic pistol, like one of these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock

and i'm not going to try to define it in a legal context, we're having a debate for our entertainment, not trying to write laws.

See, that doesn't work. You can't say "oh, I won't look at the details" because the details are where the argument falls down.

For example, this is a manhurin M73:

And this is a Webley Mk4 in .38 calibre:
deactivated-webley-mk4-.38-caliber-service-revolver-5-barrel-[5]-391-p.jpg

They fire the same round, have the same length barrel, the same trigger mechanism, and so on; but one was built to win the Olympic 25m pistol event and one was built as a military sidearm. Most people couldn't tell which one was designed to do which task just looking at them, let alone write a legal definition that seperated them. And to confuse it more, you could take the sidearm and with a few hours from a gunsmith, polish it up enough and tweak it enough that you could use it in target shooting; but it'd still be the same pistol made by the same people.

Drawing the distinction is not some simple thing to do. And it doesn't buy you anything even if you could, to be honest about it.

robindch · 26-03-2013 08:03PM

Sparks wrote: »

(a) there is insurance for firearms in every country I've ever looked at including Ireland;

I'm referring to mandatory insurance, as happens with cars (the example you picked).

Sparks wrote: »

(b) I'm reasonably sure that insurance does not pay out for damages caused by illegal acts and so it's not possible for me to take out insurance that will pay out if I murder someone.

A road accident caused by bad driving is an "illegal act" and it certainly is covered by insurance.

In fact, that's really the point of insurance - to enforce responsibility where it's lacking (as it is with guns/gun owners in the USA).

magicbastarder · 26-03-2013 08:04PM

Blay wrote: »

For an idea of what politicians see as 'evil' about the AR15..

AR15s are not legal in ireland, are they? what about them would make them illegal here?
i know several people who own guns legally (rifles and shotguns) and got licences without much hassle, and don't seem to want or need a weapon like the AR15. what is the argument for legalising them?

worth a read, despite the sometimes flippant tone:
http://www.cracked.com/article_20396_5-mind-blowing-facts-nobody-told-you-about-guns.html

especially the entry about suicide.

Witcher · 26-03-2013 08:09PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

AR15s are not legal in ireland, are they? what about them would make them illegal here?
i know several people who own guns legally (rifles and shotguns) and got licences without much hassle, and don't seem to want or need a weapon like the AR15. what is the argument for legalising them?

worth a read, despite the sometimes flippant tone:
http://www.cracked.com/article_20396_5-mind-blowing-facts-nobody-told-you-about-guns.html

especially the entry about suicide.

They are legal, several people have them. Grizzly45 over on the shooting forum has a Remington R25 which is closer to an AR10 than an AR15 but it functions the same and the average person wouldn't tell them apart as such.

You can own any firearm in Ireland according to the law...except a centrefire pistol(only the people that ahd them before Nov. 2008 can have them) and full auto obviously.

MadsL · 26-03-2013 08:22PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

well, i understand there is a difference between a gun used in the sport of target shooting, of which sparks is a practitioner, and say a glock 9, which is not 'legal' in such activities.

magicbastarder wrote: »

okay, i'll stop using terms which are probably incorrect by technical definitions used within gun circles (but are generally used by joe soap). you can correct me when i stray - let us use 'derived from military weaponry' instead of 'military grade', maybe?

from a quick look at wikipedia, i understand the AR15 is not an assault rifle because it's not switchable to full auto?

magicbastarder wrote: »

well, i think most people would be happy with defining a regulation target shooting pistol as specialist, and probably a bit more unwieldy than a semi-automatic pistol, like one of these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock

and i'm not going to try to define it in a legal context, we're having a debate for our entertainment, not trying to write laws.

If you are trying to draw a distinction between handguns for target shooting and "general" handguns, then give up because all the handguns you could name could be used in a 'Bullseye' shooting match (This is fired with three caliber disciplines .22 caliber rimfire, .45 caliber pistols and ANY center fire pistol)

magicbastarder · 26-03-2013 09:00PM

easy mistake to make - if you google 'target shooting pistol' for example, the results don't look like standard issue pistols, and the guns in the photos i've seen of sparks don't resemble them either.

Sparks · 26-03-2013 09:48PM

the guns in the photos i've seen of sparks don't resemble them either.

Yeah, but my stuff is a little esoteric.

magicbastarder wrote: »

easy mistake to make

That's the problem really. It seems terribly easy to make straightforward rules for things like this. But, as has happened everytime a Minister for Justice in Ireland has tried it, you discover pretty quickly when you try to actually use these rules in practice that it just isn't that straightforward at all, and what seems intuitive is quite often competely wrong.

magicbastarder · 26-03-2013 09:54PM

anyway, i would still take the view that if there is a good reason for a particular sort of gun, it should be legal, albeit heavily regulated.

Sparks · 26-03-2013 09:55PM

Okay, (and that's got a verbatim quote from Irish law in there too), but now define "good reason"...

MadsL · 27-03-2013 04:32AM

Sparks wrote: »

Okay, (and that's got a verbatim quote from Irish law in there too), but now define "good reason"...

I know I'll get my head bitten off - but how about "I want one" and "I've been a good boy."

aloyisious · 29-03-2013 07:31PM

I saw this photo today in a redtop in a local cafe. It expresses (for me anyway) why fire-arm owners and the so-called gun lobby in the US should lash out at the media for promoting the myth that all gun-owners are "it's all about me" when it comes to gun control.

Having said that, I wish those gun-owners who go on about the "right to keep and bear arms" would wake up to the fact that for a lot of people, it's all about these kids and the trauma they went through. There's not enough being said by gun-owners to "kill-off" the negative impression that they don't give a fiddlers curse about anyone but themselves, when it comes to owning Semi-Auto weapons designed for battlefield use and ancillary items like extended weapon magazines. They don't seem to realize that they are their own worst enemy, nor caring about how the worst sections of the US citizenry are getting hold of lethal fire-arm weaponry so easily due to what I see as a complacant attitude towards the public good.

Gun control in the USA

Comments