Here are some of the factual links that were put up. A consensus is only useful is when ALL the facts are reviewed. Some "people" in the previous thread would pick a fact that was easy to poke holes in but ignore the stronger facts. Typical shameful agenda pandering...you know who you are. The facts are OVERWHELMINGLY in opposition to further gun control despite the fact that self protection (from whomever it may be) is an inalienable right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... world-list
http://www.catb.org/esr/guns/gun-control.html
http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
Where did the gun regulations sticky go?
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
Repost of the facts
Last edited by BPBrinson on Sat Jan 05, 2013 11:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Trouble is, most 21 year olds have a clean record, you're only a convicted felon after you've been convicted of a felony after all.
If that first felony was shooting dead 20 people then its a little late to prevent you buying the gun.
Most of the recent spree shooters have had a clean record, and have bought their guns legally - or could have in a year or so in the case of Sandy Hook.
If that first felony was shooting dead 20 people then its a little late to prevent you buying the gun.
Most of the recent spree shooters have had a clean record, and have bought their guns legally - or could have in a year or so in the case of Sandy Hook.
The reason that most 21 year olds have a clean record is that 99.999% (or there abouts) are GOOD PEOPLE that can be trusted with a handgun if they choose to possess one legally. They should have that choice, not denied because of the actions of a VERY few. The only legislation that has been introduced by the gun control folks that is common sense is about a stolen gun being reported to law enforcement. Please review the above links in their entirety. I got most of them from a very liberal Californian that suspected fuzzy facts and researched on his own. He is now a converted, pro 2nd Amendment supporter.
Last edited by BPBrinson on Sat Jan 05, 2013 10:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It's always easiest to give up the rights of others. Great examples I only hunt so ban pistols, or AR's or whatever, I target shoot so no one needs pistols with magazines greater than 5 rounds.
There are many versions of this, but the point is always the same.
“First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak out for me.”
― Martin Niemöller
There are many versions of this, but the point is always the same.
“First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak out for me.”
― Martin Niemöller
inalienable, unalienable - Inalienable and unalienable are interchangeable for "unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor."
inalienable - incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another; "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"
Question for Zuck.....What would you do???
inalienable - incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another; "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"
Question for Zuck.....What would you do???
I still wait to hear a suggestion from the pro-gun crowd on how to solve the issue of people without criminal records buying very powerful and readily available guns easily and going on shooting sprees.BPBrinson wrote:The reason that most 21 year olds have a clean record is that 99.999% (or there abouts) are GOOD PEOPLE that can be trusted with a handgun if they choose to possess one legally. They should have that choice, not denied because of the actions of a VERY few. The only legislation that has been introduced by the gun control folks that is common sense is about a stolen gun being reported to law enforcement. Please review the above links in their entirety. I got most of them from a very liberal Californian that suspected fuzzy facts and researched on his own. He is now a converted, pro 2nd Amendment supporter.
I'm a shooter, I don't want my sport curtailed, but all I hear is static, endless nitpicking of anti-gun proposals and '2nd amendment' shouted loudly.
James, you obviously did not review the links provided above. Violent crime and gun crime is covered there. Those that live in glass houses......
what about the rise in violent crime in AUS since the gun buy back? Or the estimated 3 to 3.5 million guns that were not turned in?
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html
Sure, gun crime, accidents and suicide by gun went down, but what about violent crime? You answer the same question that Scott asked. "What would you do???" Have you ever been scared?
The Dalai Lama (largest proponent of peace next to Gandhi) said.... "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
what about the rise in violent crime in AUS since the gun buy back? Or the estimated 3 to 3.5 million guns that were not turned in?
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html
Sure, gun crime, accidents and suicide by gun went down, but what about violent crime? You answer the same question that Scott asked. "What would you do???" Have you ever been scared?
The Dalai Lama (largest proponent of peace next to Gandhi) said.... "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
Thats all terrific, but at the moment the govt is looking at how to resolve the problem of people carrying out spree shootings using military-style semi-automatic weapons with multiple high capacity magazines.BPBrinson wrote:James, you obviously did not review the links provided above. Violent crime and gun crime is covered there. Those that live in glass houses......
what about the rise in violent crime in AUS since the gun buy back? Or the estimated 3 to 3.5 million guns that were not turned in?
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html
Sure, gun crime, accidents and suicide by gun went down, but what about violent crime? You answer the same question that Scott asked. "What would you do???" Have you ever been scared?
The Dalai Lama (largest proponent of peace next to Ghandi) said.... "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, he said, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
The current solution, which is likely to be enacted unless a better solution comes along, is to ban military-style semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines.
The 'there's no point in doing anything' argument isn't going to fly this time, I don't think, so unless the shooting community puts forward something useful into the argument the anti-gun crowd are going to win it.
I'm not really seing how letting any 21 year old male with a clean record buy a handgun solves the problem of 20-something males with clean records committing mass-murder.
Last edited by JamesH on Sat Jan 05, 2013 11:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
something I found on the net and attributed to PiRierran.:
As an engineer, I find myself drawn to taking a systematic approach to solving a lot of our society's problems. Start by laying out requirements, find an option that works, no matter how strange it might seem, and work out the details. In this diary, I will lay out an alternative proposal for managing gun ownership in the United States that might stand a chance of both passing congress and making a difference.
I've already tested this on many of the hardcore gun-nuts at work, and all find it plausible.
In no particular order, here are the attributes that, at least in my opinion, any sensible gun control proposal in the present day should have.
1) It should be simple in scope and easy to understand, even if it has far reaching consequences.
2 It should take into account the reality of gun ownership now, and the framework needs to be effective now and in the future.
3 It should be stable, with a single framework able to adapt and stay relevant even as technology and politics change.
4 It should protect "gun rights" and doesn't need to be more intrusive than the framework for other dangerous hobbies such as private aviaton.
5 It should limit the need for new government expenditures in oversight and criminal enforcement.
6) It should be defensible, preferably in the form of a buzz-phrase that makes it easy to paint opponents of the reform as silly.
First, let's talk about a few concepts on the table that won't work:
1) Restrictions on the features of guns (combination locks integrated into the gun itself) won't limit gun ownership. California has very strict gun laws, and it isn't hard to find clones of modern assault rifles that are "cal-legal", engineered to bypass the restrictions while keeping the guns just as deadly. Can't own an automatic weapon? Try a bump fire stock. Can't carry a million bullets in one magazine? Try a speed loader . Human ingenuity will find clever ways around technical restrictions, turning the whole enterprise into a ridiculous game of whack-a-mole.
2) Restrictions imposing specific security measures on guns (suc as keypads or combination locks) won't work for two reasons, one technological and one regulatory:
Is simply impossible to gain security by means of a passive unattended safety device. Those devices may fail just like the mechanical safety of the gun itself. Clever individuals, just like XBox modders and pickers, will find ways to bypass those security features. For the case of standardized measures, tools for the repair of locking systems will be available, and the locks won't be of any use at all against criminals.
The second problem with authorized user locks is more subtle. In general, the more effective the protection measure, the more the protection measure will interfere with timely access to the weapon, and the less "useful" the weapon will be. Reactive target shooting, like Olympic skeet and trap, off duty police and government agents for self defense, and any number of other situations hat require quick access to a weapon will inevitably secure an exception to an authorized user gun. In short, the more effective physical protection measures are, the more guns will be in circulation that do not have the locks.
3) Absolute restrictions on ownership are likely to be struck down by the supreme court, and risk having holes poked in them by courts and lobby groups.
The details of the plan are below the fold.
My proposal is simple:
Explicitly change to US tort law to establish strict liability for the owner of a firearm regarding any use or transfer of that firearm, with a large cap (in the case of tort reform) of perhaps $500,000. This kind of liability already exists for firearms when one pulls the trigger, so this would be a fairly simple extension of that.
Change [18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30] from "no reason to believe" to "reason to not believe" or a similar legal construct.
The buzz-phrase is simple: "As a responsible gun owner, aren't you responsible for what happens with your gun?"
The idea here is that we establish a collective responsibility for gun owners to prevent guns from being misused by making gun owners responsible for what those guns do, even in someone else's hands. This is identical in concept to existing child protection laws. If a gun is used in a crime or accident, then the legal gun owner becomes an accessory to civilly culpable for that crime or accident.
How would this help?
Keeping a gun unsecured, selling it to a total stranger, and any of another thousand irresponsible things that a gun owner can do (and if you ask most responsible gun owners, they will insist that they never do) opens the door to a wrongful death lawsuit if your gun is used to kill someone.
Gun owners have only three options to manage that liability. First, option is due diligence. Be strict about access. Keep guns under lock and key, follow recommendations on responsible access, don't advertise them, and sell them through licensed dealers, etc. But even that may not be enough since it only one disagreement between the gun owner and a jury whether a provision was sufficient. So the second option is the same one we use for cars or houses: Insurance. The third option is to stop being the owner of the gun (which removes the liability).
And just like cars or houses, insurance companies are free to ask any questions they wish before providing coverage, and charge rates based on your actual risk of being found culpable. Having to buy insurance on a gun also poses a stark reminder that guns do cause society harm, and that they need to be handled responsibly.
The big key here is the strict liability. All guns in private hands are sold through a dealer to a private person. If that gun is sold (and the liability with it), it becomes important to establish proof that the liability has gone as well. Since the liability is strict, the legal owner of the gun is automatically culpable regardless of intent without due diligence. That means keeping the records of the sale, following the law to make sure the sale is legal, etc. Otherwise all a gun owner has done is loan a gun out without supervision.
We all know what ways guns need to be kept and owned so that they're not stolen, not misused, not accessed by children, etc. This creates a self enforcing system where the victims or families of victims of gun crime force ALL gun owners in the country to act responsibly, or face financial devastation.
Now we get to the slightly harder piece to manage: private buying and selling of guns.
Current law establishes that a licensed gun dealer who runs a background check on someone has done due diligence that they're not a criminal, and can sell them a gun. Buying guns through mail order and through the internet requires the help of a gun store.
By strengthening the private transfer rule just a little, ignorance is stripped out of the equation. By removing willful ignorance from the liability equation. With every sale scrutinized, due diligence on each transfer of a firearm is just as important to keeping them under control.
In short: If you buy a gun, you are now responsible, in civil court if not criminal, if that gun is used to hurt or kill someone. Period. Being a gun owner means having the personal responsibility to prevent people from using that gun in a crime. The only way to walk away from that responsibility is to destroy the firearm, or transfer it to a responsible individual, and you are personally responsible for making sure that the person who you sell the gun to is legally allowed to receive it. (Federally licensed dealers are automatically allowed to receive guns, so selling a gun to or through a gun store is an example of how, even under a strict system, gun owners aren't left high and dry.)
How does this framework get past classic opposition groups:
Firearms dealers now have an additional source of revenue, as law abiding citizens approach them more frequently to mediate transactions. Gun shops charge a fee to process those transactions.
This system wouldn't actually require any new limitations on ownership, nor would it require any new government intrusion into people's homes. All but the most virulent no-gun-regulation republicans should be able to support such a measure.
Even the NRA should be behind such a proposal, since this idea would create an environment that strengthens the incentives for people to do what the NRA itself even
recommends!
Bottom Line:
Strict liability would improve the overall responsibility of gun ownership in this country by rendering irresponsible gun owners financially unable to continue being gun owners. Backdoor gun dealers who make money selling guns anonymously (and under current law, their business model is perfectly legal), would find themselves similarly unable to finance their business.
Since the overwhelming majority of legally owned guns are never used in a crime, but a huge proportion of guns used in crimes are or were recently legally owned, finding ways to enforce what most responsible gun owners do anyway would help a lot.
written by PiRierran.
Originally posted to PiRierran on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:49 PM PST.
As an engineer, I find myself drawn to taking a systematic approach to solving a lot of our society's problems. Start by laying out requirements, find an option that works, no matter how strange it might seem, and work out the details. In this diary, I will lay out an alternative proposal for managing gun ownership in the United States that might stand a chance of both passing congress and making a difference.
I've already tested this on many of the hardcore gun-nuts at work, and all find it plausible.
In no particular order, here are the attributes that, at least in my opinion, any sensible gun control proposal in the present day should have.
1) It should be simple in scope and easy to understand, even if it has far reaching consequences.
2 It should take into account the reality of gun ownership now, and the framework needs to be effective now and in the future.
3 It should be stable, with a single framework able to adapt and stay relevant even as technology and politics change.
4 It should protect "gun rights" and doesn't need to be more intrusive than the framework for other dangerous hobbies such as private aviaton.
5 It should limit the need for new government expenditures in oversight and criminal enforcement.
6) It should be defensible, preferably in the form of a buzz-phrase that makes it easy to paint opponents of the reform as silly.
First, let's talk about a few concepts on the table that won't work:
1) Restrictions on the features of guns (combination locks integrated into the gun itself) won't limit gun ownership. California has very strict gun laws, and it isn't hard to find clones of modern assault rifles that are "cal-legal", engineered to bypass the restrictions while keeping the guns just as deadly. Can't own an automatic weapon? Try a bump fire stock. Can't carry a million bullets in one magazine? Try a speed loader . Human ingenuity will find clever ways around technical restrictions, turning the whole enterprise into a ridiculous game of whack-a-mole.
2) Restrictions imposing specific security measures on guns (suc as keypads or combination locks) won't work for two reasons, one technological and one regulatory:
Is simply impossible to gain security by means of a passive unattended safety device. Those devices may fail just like the mechanical safety of the gun itself. Clever individuals, just like XBox modders and pickers, will find ways to bypass those security features. For the case of standardized measures, tools for the repair of locking systems will be available, and the locks won't be of any use at all against criminals.
The second problem with authorized user locks is more subtle. In general, the more effective the protection measure, the more the protection measure will interfere with timely access to the weapon, and the less "useful" the weapon will be. Reactive target shooting, like Olympic skeet and trap, off duty police and government agents for self defense, and any number of other situations hat require quick access to a weapon will inevitably secure an exception to an authorized user gun. In short, the more effective physical protection measures are, the more guns will be in circulation that do not have the locks.
3) Absolute restrictions on ownership are likely to be struck down by the supreme court, and risk having holes poked in them by courts and lobby groups.
The details of the plan are below the fold.
My proposal is simple:
Explicitly change to US tort law to establish strict liability for the owner of a firearm regarding any use or transfer of that firearm, with a large cap (in the case of tort reform) of perhaps $500,000. This kind of liability already exists for firearms when one pulls the trigger, so this would be a fairly simple extension of that.
Change [18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30] from "no reason to believe" to "reason to not believe" or a similar legal construct.
The buzz-phrase is simple: "As a responsible gun owner, aren't you responsible for what happens with your gun?"
The idea here is that we establish a collective responsibility for gun owners to prevent guns from being misused by making gun owners responsible for what those guns do, even in someone else's hands. This is identical in concept to existing child protection laws. If a gun is used in a crime or accident, then the legal gun owner becomes an accessory to civilly culpable for that crime or accident.
How would this help?
Keeping a gun unsecured, selling it to a total stranger, and any of another thousand irresponsible things that a gun owner can do (and if you ask most responsible gun owners, they will insist that they never do) opens the door to a wrongful death lawsuit if your gun is used to kill someone.
Gun owners have only three options to manage that liability. First, option is due diligence. Be strict about access. Keep guns under lock and key, follow recommendations on responsible access, don't advertise them, and sell them through licensed dealers, etc. But even that may not be enough since it only one disagreement between the gun owner and a jury whether a provision was sufficient. So the second option is the same one we use for cars or houses: Insurance. The third option is to stop being the owner of the gun (which removes the liability).
And just like cars or houses, insurance companies are free to ask any questions they wish before providing coverage, and charge rates based on your actual risk of being found culpable. Having to buy insurance on a gun also poses a stark reminder that guns do cause society harm, and that they need to be handled responsibly.
The big key here is the strict liability. All guns in private hands are sold through a dealer to a private person. If that gun is sold (and the liability with it), it becomes important to establish proof that the liability has gone as well. Since the liability is strict, the legal owner of the gun is automatically culpable regardless of intent without due diligence. That means keeping the records of the sale, following the law to make sure the sale is legal, etc. Otherwise all a gun owner has done is loan a gun out without supervision.
We all know what ways guns need to be kept and owned so that they're not stolen, not misused, not accessed by children, etc. This creates a self enforcing system where the victims or families of victims of gun crime force ALL gun owners in the country to act responsibly, or face financial devastation.
Now we get to the slightly harder piece to manage: private buying and selling of guns.
Current law establishes that a licensed gun dealer who runs a background check on someone has done due diligence that they're not a criminal, and can sell them a gun. Buying guns through mail order and through the internet requires the help of a gun store.
By strengthening the private transfer rule just a little, ignorance is stripped out of the equation. By removing willful ignorance from the liability equation. With every sale scrutinized, due diligence on each transfer of a firearm is just as important to keeping them under control.
In short: If you buy a gun, you are now responsible, in civil court if not criminal, if that gun is used to hurt or kill someone. Period. Being a gun owner means having the personal responsibility to prevent people from using that gun in a crime. The only way to walk away from that responsibility is to destroy the firearm, or transfer it to a responsible individual, and you are personally responsible for making sure that the person who you sell the gun to is legally allowed to receive it. (Federally licensed dealers are automatically allowed to receive guns, so selling a gun to or through a gun store is an example of how, even under a strict system, gun owners aren't left high and dry.)
How does this framework get past classic opposition groups:
Firearms dealers now have an additional source of revenue, as law abiding citizens approach them more frequently to mediate transactions. Gun shops charge a fee to process those transactions.
This system wouldn't actually require any new limitations on ownership, nor would it require any new government intrusion into people's homes. All but the most virulent no-gun-regulation republicans should be able to support such a measure.
Even the NRA should be behind such a proposal, since this idea would create an environment that strengthens the incentives for people to do what the NRA itself even
recommends!
Bottom Line:
Strict liability would improve the overall responsibility of gun ownership in this country by rendering irresponsible gun owners financially unable to continue being gun owners. Backdoor gun dealers who make money selling guns anonymously (and under current law, their business model is perfectly legal), would find themselves similarly unable to finance their business.
Since the overwhelming majority of legally owned guns are never used in a crime, but a huge proportion of guns used in crimes are or were recently legally owned, finding ways to enforce what most responsible gun owners do anyway would help a lot.
written by PiRierran.
Originally posted to PiRierran on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:49 PM PST.
zuckerman wrote:
and
Yes, and survived. Do you think he would have survived if there hadn't been some good guys with guns there to stop the further violence?Wasn't reagan surrounded by secret service, yet he still got shot....
and
Which would not change the fact that the right is inalienable, given from God. Deletion of the 2nd Amendment would only take away the chain of no infringement that was put on our government by "the people" from whom the government gets it's power to govern.in fact, ANY of the amendments can be changed or more added.
You're on shaky ground there, since it was written the 2nd amendment has been steadily whittle down, partly by the passage of technology, from "any state of the art weapon of war" to "semi-automatic small-calibre small-arms at most".Pat McCoy wrote:Which would not change the fact that the right is inalienable, given from God. Deletion of the 2nd Amendment would only take away the chain of no infringement that was put on our government by "the people" from whom the government gets it's power to govern.
Back in the day muskets and cannons were state of the art, the army and populace could own both.
Technology has overtaken the constitution, you can't own a bazooka, grenade launcher, even buy new fully-automatic military rifles - you've lost those from your 'inalienable rights' so they're hardly 'inalienable'
The US has already had a ban on 'assault rifles' which wasn't judged unconstitutional, if its put in place again it won't be judged unconstitutional.
Deleting the 2nd amendment won't give you new unlimited inalienable rights since you've never had them.
You raised this question before, and it deserves an answer. In the first place, I don't think there are very many people in the government who actually believe the gun-ban laws they are proposing will truly make a difference. Maybe I'm too cynical, but the available studies ALL show that there is no evidence that gun control measures have worked, and surely the politicians have some awareness of those studies. However, the politicians are under a lot of pressure to "do something", so they will try to do something - anything - to relieve that pressure.JamesH wrote: Thats all terrific, but at the moment the govt is looking at how to resolve the problem of people carrying out spree shootings using military-style semi-automatic weapons with multiple high capacity magazines.
The current solution, which is likely to be enacted unless a better solution comes along, is to ban military-style semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines.
The 'there's no point in doing anything' argument isn't going to fly this time, I don't think, so unless the shooting community puts forward something useful into the argument the anti-gun crowd are going to win it.
And here's the rub: when that "something" doesn't work - as it surely will not - and there's another tragic event, the politicians will then want to "do something" else. And the pattern will be repeated until just about every gun is banned, because that's how governments tend to operate. If a policy doesn't work, you don't abandon it or rethink it, you just double down on it (see the "War on Drugs", the isolation of Cuba, the Vietnam, Iraq and Afganistan wars, etc.). Maybe they'll call this one the "War on Guns". So it's counter-productive for pro-gunners to suggest various gun-control measures in hopes of shaping the prospective laws.
So what about suggesting other, non-gun-control measures? The NRA did try that and got ridiculed and roasted for it. I too was skeptical when I first heard about it, but when I read the entire NRA statement I saw some things that made sense. First, 1/3 of the public schools in the country already have security guards, so this is not a totally wild idea. Second, none of the objectors seems to recognize the deterrent potential of making schools a non-gun-free zone (they just invoke apocalyptic shoot-out scenarios). And third, the objection that all other public spaces would need equal protection could be covered by rational and safe concealed carry policies.
But really the NRA proposal is another short-term quick fix. Unfortunately, both sides of this issue are entrenched in mutually exclusive ways of thinking, and the pressure to "do something" makes reasonable debate and consideration of long-term measures (improving the mental health system, changing the culture that glorifies fantasy guns and violence, etc.) just about impossible. I really doubt that anything constructive or positive will come out of this, but it's not because the "shooting community" has failed to offer a solution.
FredB
Solutions? This video points out some of the very disturbing, underlying causes of crime. However, violent crime is at half the rate it was 20 years ago and mass shootings are down too. Look at the facts covered in the links I have provided previously! This video points out some very disturbing facts. I don't want to believe some of them, but have researched and they can not be denied.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFMUeUEr ... r_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFMUeUEr ... r_embedded
JamesH,
I just want to point out that we can buy cannons, bazookas, and grenade launchers. We can also buy or make sawed off shotguns and rifles. We can buy and own pre 1986 manufactured machineguns.
We have Title I weapons, which are what a lot of folks think is all we are allowed to own. These are your common arms; rifles with 16 inch or longer barrels, shotguns with 18-1/2 inch or longer, and handguns.
We also have Title II weapons, commonly called Class 3, but that is not the correct name. These are the result of the 1934 National Firearms Act, NFA. You must register them and pay a one time tax to own them; fingerprints, photo, and background check, etc. There are not many restrictions. Your full auto pre 86 weapons are in here, short barreled guns, shoulder stocked and/or vertical foregrip pistols, and the like etc. Some, classed as AOW pay $5.00 tax, while most of the rest are $200.00. Grenades, cannons, and bazookas would be in the Destructive Devices category, again not banned, just regulated.
Justice Scalia said that rights can be regulated to a degree, but not to the degree that makes something effectively banned, including full classes of weapons. He also wasn't too sure if the pre 86 machinegun ban would hold up after the Heller decision.
I just want to point out that we can buy cannons, bazookas, and grenade launchers. We can also buy or make sawed off shotguns and rifles. We can buy and own pre 1986 manufactured machineguns.
We have Title I weapons, which are what a lot of folks think is all we are allowed to own. These are your common arms; rifles with 16 inch or longer barrels, shotguns with 18-1/2 inch or longer, and handguns.
We also have Title II weapons, commonly called Class 3, but that is not the correct name. These are the result of the 1934 National Firearms Act, NFA. You must register them and pay a one time tax to own them; fingerprints, photo, and background check, etc. There are not many restrictions. Your full auto pre 86 weapons are in here, short barreled guns, shoulder stocked and/or vertical foregrip pistols, and the like etc. Some, classed as AOW pay $5.00 tax, while most of the rest are $200.00. Grenades, cannons, and bazookas would be in the Destructive Devices category, again not banned, just regulated.
Justice Scalia said that rights can be regulated to a degree, but not to the degree that makes something effectively banned, including full classes of weapons. He also wasn't too sure if the pre 86 machinegun ban would hold up after the Heller decision.
-
Guest
So what you are saying is that it is ok for a 20 year old give his life for his country but he can't buy a handgun?JamesH wrote:Thats all terrific, but at the moment the govt is looking at how to resolve the problem of people carrying out spree shootings using military-style semi-automatic weapons with multiple high capacity magazines.BPBrinson wrote:James, you obviously did not review the links provided above. Violent crime and gun crime is covered there. Those that live in glass houses......
what about the rise in violent crime in AUS since the gun buy back? Or the estimated 3 to 3.5 million guns that were not turned in?
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html
Sure, gun crime, accidents and suicide by gun went down, but what about violent crime? You answer the same question that Scott asked. "What would you do???" Have you ever been scared?
The Dalai Lama (largest proponent of peace next to Ghandi) said.... "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, he said, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
The current solution, which is likely to be enacted unless a better solution comes along, is to ban military-style semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines.
The 'there's no point in doing anything' argument isn't going to fly this time, I don't think, so unless the shooting community puts forward something useful into the argument the anti-gun crowd are going to win it.
I'm not really seing how letting any 21 year old male with a clean record buy a handgun solves the problem of 20-something males with clean records committing mass-murder.
this is another thought experiment. I do not know who to attribute this to, nor where it was found on the net.
Basic Ballistics
The deadliness of a bullet is determined by its mass, its speed at impact, and the rate at which the bullet slows after impact (accuracy, of course also matters, but that is more a factor of training than of the weapon. Most modern rifles are capable of more accuracy than the person shooting them.) Here I will be discussing the first two factors, mostly ignoring the way some bullets are designed to slow more quickly (e.g., hollow point bullets). Combining velocity, mass and distance, it is possible to calculate the impact energy of any projectile, including bullets. All other things being equal, the greater the impact energy, the more deadly the bullet.
When designing a bullet, engineers must consider the size, shape and explosive charge that propels a bullet (larger charge=faster bullet). Whatever the design, the moment the bullet leaves the gun, it slows down. The impact energy of a bullet at 50 yards will be greater than the impact energy at 200 yards. The standard distance for evaluating the impact energy of a rifle is 100 yards.
Based on this simple understanding of ballistics, people might guess that the deadliness of ‘assault weapons’ is because they have higher impact energies than hunting rifles—but critically, that is not true. In reality, the impact energies of ‘assault weapons’ are typically less, often far less, than a typical hunting rifle. Here I will use the impact energies calculated by Hornady, an ammunition maker who publishes detailed ballistic information for all of their extensive line of bullets.
Using Hornady’s Standard Ballistics Chart, the typical ammo for an AR-15 (e.g., .223 Remington or 5.56 NATO) the impact energies range between about 900 and 1200 ft/lbs at 100 yards. In contrast, a .308 Winchester round (a standard all-purpose hunting round) has impact energies ranging from about 2500 to 2800 ft/lbs at 100 yards—more than twice the impact energy of a round fired by a typical AR-15. More so, since the ammo used in an AR-15 is smaller than a .308 Winchester round, the impact energies at distances greater than 100 yards drop off much more quickly for the ammo used in an AR-15. So, strictly looking at the impact energies of a single bullet fired from an AR-15 and a ‘standard’ hunting rifle, the hunting rifle is far more deadly—at all distances.
So, given this, shouldn’t we be banning hunting weapons rather than ‘assault weapons?’ No. Up to this point, we have been talking only about a single bullet, which makes sense when talking about hunting. Hunters try to take their prey with a single shot for ethical and practical reasons. Most hunters do not want to cause undue suffering to an animal and they do not want the animal to run, forcing the hunter to track the animal to where it died. In dense woods, tracking can be a nightmare…often resulting in losing the animal. For both practical and ethical reason, hunters want to kill their prey--with a single shot--as close to instantly as possible. Hunters are also typically shooting at medium to long distances. Most critters are very good at sensing hunters and bolting before they get close. Hunters need a rifle that has high impact energies even at distances greater than 100 yards. Finally, hunters rarely have time to shoot more than two times at the same animal. They either kill it or it runs away well before they have a chance to take more shots. Given all of this, an AR-15 is an awful hunting rifle and a rifle based on .308 Winchester ammo is pretty good.
In contrast, the design of assault style rifles is intended for another purpose—close to medium range combat. The ammo fired from an assault weapon is typically smaller, but with higher muzzle velocities, creating a weapon with its ‘peak’ effectiveness at the short to medium range. With a single bullet, an ‘assault weapon’ is actually more likely to wound a person than a hunting rifle. This is not an accident. The idea is that by wounding an enemy in combat, several enemies will be forced to help that person and stop returning fire. To make up for its lower impact energies, ‘assault weapons’ are designed to shoot more bullets in a shorter period of time. To phrase it simply, if a hunting rifle can deliver one bullet with about 2,700 ft/lbs of impact energy, an AR-15 can deliver multiple bullets with about 1,000 ft/lbs of energy. More so, since people are less quick (and less tough) than most deer, the first bullet slows people enough so that they can be shot again. For this reason, ‘assault weapons’ typically carry more ammunition and can fire it faster than a hunting rifle. To phrase it simply, ‘assault weapons’ are favored by those who want to shoot up movie theatres, grade schools and shopping malls because these weapons are designed for exactly this sort of short to medium distance shooting.
Taking all this into consideration, A rifle that shoots (1) many, (2) large bullets with (3) high muzzle velocities would be more dangerous than a rifle that can shoot (1) few, (2) small bullets with (3) low muzzle velocities. The best way to evaluate the deadliness of a rifle is to develop a formula that combines the impact energies at 100 yards with the rate of fire per minute—what I will call the Cumulative Impact Energy per Minute (CIEpM). Critically, this formula does not address how many bullets fit in a single magazine, nor does it address how quickly a magazine can be changed—only the number of shots an average user can shoot in a minute. It could be one large magazine that is a pain in the ass to switch out, or a small magazine that is really easy. The only question, in terms of its danger is how many shots per minute, however achieved.
Using the CIEpM formula (impact energy x rate of fire per minute), it is easy to see the difference between an assault weapon style rifle, and a hunting rifle. Depending on the magazine size, an assault rifle can shoot many, many bullets per minute, though sustained fire tends to make them jam. In contrast, a bolt action rifle requires manually pushing bullet into the firing chamber, slowing down the rate of fire. Many hunting rifles have magazines with 6 bullets, and magazines that are slow to change. ‘Assault weapons’ in contrast can have magazines with 20-30 bullets, and easily switched magazines. Thus, using .308 ammo in a bolt-action rifle with a 6 shot magazine, the rate of fire per minute is about 6 shots—with a CIEpM of 2700 x 6 = 16,200. In contrast, a semi-automatic assault style rifle using .223 Remington ammunition may be able to shoot 30 or more bullets in one minute (not sustained)—with a CIEpM of 1000 x 30 = 30,000. Thus, a semi-automatic assault style rifle, like an AR-15, does roughly double the damage as a ‘typical’ hunting rifle when viewed in terms of CIEpM.
A Better Assault Weapons Ban
So, in order to make the new assault weapons ban better than the poorly conceived 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, we need to abandon the definition based on presence of bayonet mounts, flash suppressors, and grip type and replace it with a definition based a rifle's Cumulative Impact Energy per Minute at 100 yards. First, by calculating a ‘typical’ hunting rifles CIEpM, we can establish an upper limit necessary for hunting. Using the most powerful .308 Winchester ammo available and 8 shots a minute as ‘typical’, the CIEpM of a ‘typical’ hunting rifle would be about 22,400 (2800 ft/lb x 8 shot per minute). Just to add buffer, lets say that a maximum CIEpM of 25,000 is more than sufficient for any hunting rifle. That is, any rifle with a maximum CIEpM over 25,000 could be banned without causing undue difficulty for hunters.
In practice, establishing 25,000 as a maximum CIEpM would have several benefits. First, it would allow gun makers significant flexibility in terms of making hunting weapons. For very large game, rifles could be designed to only allow 5 shot per minute, but impact energies at 100 yards of 5,000 ft/lbs. Smaller calibers, suitable for target shooting, could have higher rates of fire. Rifles could even keep the ‘assault style’, but could not fire more than 25 shots per minute (assuming 1000 ft/lbs at 100 yards).
The second benefit of using CIEpM to define banned weapons is that it would prevent gun manufacturers from skirting the law. Calculating the impact energies is well established, and the rate of fire could be easily determined by having multiple average shooters use a new weapon for a few days and average their rate of fire. If the CIEpM is too high, that gun is not legal for sale to the general public. More so, a similar formula could be used to determine which handguns should, or should not be legal (I have not yet worked out this out, but provisionally I think the maximum CIEpM of handguns should be about 6,000 at 50 yards—based on 12 shots per minute from a .357 revolver)
I suspect that there could, and should, be debate over the specific maximum CIEpM value for rifles. As I see it, 25,000 is actually fairly high maximum CIEpM. Really, it would take no more than a rifle with a maximum CIEpM of about 10,000 to take down all but the largest game (4 bullets at 2,500 ft/lbs, 3 bullets at 3,300 ft/lb or 2 at 5,000 ft/lbs).
In the end, however, the most important element of using CIEpM to determine whether a rifle is banned or not is that it would end the practice of using rifle bling (e.g., things that make a rifle look bad-ass, but actually aren’t dangerous) as the defining characteristics of ‘assault weapons.’ This was a central problem in the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, and continues to be a problem in the revised assault weapons ban currently on the table. Using the CIEpM to determine whether a rifle is, or is not, legal would use the characteristics that actually make a gun dangerous to determine whether a gun was too dangerous to be available to the general population. That, at least, would be a step forward.
Basic Ballistics
The deadliness of a bullet is determined by its mass, its speed at impact, and the rate at which the bullet slows after impact (accuracy, of course also matters, but that is more a factor of training than of the weapon. Most modern rifles are capable of more accuracy than the person shooting them.) Here I will be discussing the first two factors, mostly ignoring the way some bullets are designed to slow more quickly (e.g., hollow point bullets). Combining velocity, mass and distance, it is possible to calculate the impact energy of any projectile, including bullets. All other things being equal, the greater the impact energy, the more deadly the bullet.
When designing a bullet, engineers must consider the size, shape and explosive charge that propels a bullet (larger charge=faster bullet). Whatever the design, the moment the bullet leaves the gun, it slows down. The impact energy of a bullet at 50 yards will be greater than the impact energy at 200 yards. The standard distance for evaluating the impact energy of a rifle is 100 yards.
Based on this simple understanding of ballistics, people might guess that the deadliness of ‘assault weapons’ is because they have higher impact energies than hunting rifles—but critically, that is not true. In reality, the impact energies of ‘assault weapons’ are typically less, often far less, than a typical hunting rifle. Here I will use the impact energies calculated by Hornady, an ammunition maker who publishes detailed ballistic information for all of their extensive line of bullets.
Using Hornady’s Standard Ballistics Chart, the typical ammo for an AR-15 (e.g., .223 Remington or 5.56 NATO) the impact energies range between about 900 and 1200 ft/lbs at 100 yards. In contrast, a .308 Winchester round (a standard all-purpose hunting round) has impact energies ranging from about 2500 to 2800 ft/lbs at 100 yards—more than twice the impact energy of a round fired by a typical AR-15. More so, since the ammo used in an AR-15 is smaller than a .308 Winchester round, the impact energies at distances greater than 100 yards drop off much more quickly for the ammo used in an AR-15. So, strictly looking at the impact energies of a single bullet fired from an AR-15 and a ‘standard’ hunting rifle, the hunting rifle is far more deadly—at all distances.
So, given this, shouldn’t we be banning hunting weapons rather than ‘assault weapons?’ No. Up to this point, we have been talking only about a single bullet, which makes sense when talking about hunting. Hunters try to take their prey with a single shot for ethical and practical reasons. Most hunters do not want to cause undue suffering to an animal and they do not want the animal to run, forcing the hunter to track the animal to where it died. In dense woods, tracking can be a nightmare…often resulting in losing the animal. For both practical and ethical reason, hunters want to kill their prey--with a single shot--as close to instantly as possible. Hunters are also typically shooting at medium to long distances. Most critters are very good at sensing hunters and bolting before they get close. Hunters need a rifle that has high impact energies even at distances greater than 100 yards. Finally, hunters rarely have time to shoot more than two times at the same animal. They either kill it or it runs away well before they have a chance to take more shots. Given all of this, an AR-15 is an awful hunting rifle and a rifle based on .308 Winchester ammo is pretty good.
In contrast, the design of assault style rifles is intended for another purpose—close to medium range combat. The ammo fired from an assault weapon is typically smaller, but with higher muzzle velocities, creating a weapon with its ‘peak’ effectiveness at the short to medium range. With a single bullet, an ‘assault weapon’ is actually more likely to wound a person than a hunting rifle. This is not an accident. The idea is that by wounding an enemy in combat, several enemies will be forced to help that person and stop returning fire. To make up for its lower impact energies, ‘assault weapons’ are designed to shoot more bullets in a shorter period of time. To phrase it simply, if a hunting rifle can deliver one bullet with about 2,700 ft/lbs of impact energy, an AR-15 can deliver multiple bullets with about 1,000 ft/lbs of energy. More so, since people are less quick (and less tough) than most deer, the first bullet slows people enough so that they can be shot again. For this reason, ‘assault weapons’ typically carry more ammunition and can fire it faster than a hunting rifle. To phrase it simply, ‘assault weapons’ are favored by those who want to shoot up movie theatres, grade schools and shopping malls because these weapons are designed for exactly this sort of short to medium distance shooting.
Taking all this into consideration, A rifle that shoots (1) many, (2) large bullets with (3) high muzzle velocities would be more dangerous than a rifle that can shoot (1) few, (2) small bullets with (3) low muzzle velocities. The best way to evaluate the deadliness of a rifle is to develop a formula that combines the impact energies at 100 yards with the rate of fire per minute—what I will call the Cumulative Impact Energy per Minute (CIEpM). Critically, this formula does not address how many bullets fit in a single magazine, nor does it address how quickly a magazine can be changed—only the number of shots an average user can shoot in a minute. It could be one large magazine that is a pain in the ass to switch out, or a small magazine that is really easy. The only question, in terms of its danger is how many shots per minute, however achieved.
Using the CIEpM formula (impact energy x rate of fire per minute), it is easy to see the difference between an assault weapon style rifle, and a hunting rifle. Depending on the magazine size, an assault rifle can shoot many, many bullets per minute, though sustained fire tends to make them jam. In contrast, a bolt action rifle requires manually pushing bullet into the firing chamber, slowing down the rate of fire. Many hunting rifles have magazines with 6 bullets, and magazines that are slow to change. ‘Assault weapons’ in contrast can have magazines with 20-30 bullets, and easily switched magazines. Thus, using .308 ammo in a bolt-action rifle with a 6 shot magazine, the rate of fire per minute is about 6 shots—with a CIEpM of 2700 x 6 = 16,200. In contrast, a semi-automatic assault style rifle using .223 Remington ammunition may be able to shoot 30 or more bullets in one minute (not sustained)—with a CIEpM of 1000 x 30 = 30,000. Thus, a semi-automatic assault style rifle, like an AR-15, does roughly double the damage as a ‘typical’ hunting rifle when viewed in terms of CIEpM.
A Better Assault Weapons Ban
So, in order to make the new assault weapons ban better than the poorly conceived 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, we need to abandon the definition based on presence of bayonet mounts, flash suppressors, and grip type and replace it with a definition based a rifle's Cumulative Impact Energy per Minute at 100 yards. First, by calculating a ‘typical’ hunting rifles CIEpM, we can establish an upper limit necessary for hunting. Using the most powerful .308 Winchester ammo available and 8 shots a minute as ‘typical’, the CIEpM of a ‘typical’ hunting rifle would be about 22,400 (2800 ft/lb x 8 shot per minute). Just to add buffer, lets say that a maximum CIEpM of 25,000 is more than sufficient for any hunting rifle. That is, any rifle with a maximum CIEpM over 25,000 could be banned without causing undue difficulty for hunters.
In practice, establishing 25,000 as a maximum CIEpM would have several benefits. First, it would allow gun makers significant flexibility in terms of making hunting weapons. For very large game, rifles could be designed to only allow 5 shot per minute, but impact energies at 100 yards of 5,000 ft/lbs. Smaller calibers, suitable for target shooting, could have higher rates of fire. Rifles could even keep the ‘assault style’, but could not fire more than 25 shots per minute (assuming 1000 ft/lbs at 100 yards).
The second benefit of using CIEpM to define banned weapons is that it would prevent gun manufacturers from skirting the law. Calculating the impact energies is well established, and the rate of fire could be easily determined by having multiple average shooters use a new weapon for a few days and average their rate of fire. If the CIEpM is too high, that gun is not legal for sale to the general public. More so, a similar formula could be used to determine which handguns should, or should not be legal (I have not yet worked out this out, but provisionally I think the maximum CIEpM of handguns should be about 6,000 at 50 yards—based on 12 shots per minute from a .357 revolver)
I suspect that there could, and should, be debate over the specific maximum CIEpM value for rifles. As I see it, 25,000 is actually fairly high maximum CIEpM. Really, it would take no more than a rifle with a maximum CIEpM of about 10,000 to take down all but the largest game (4 bullets at 2,500 ft/lbs, 3 bullets at 3,300 ft/lb or 2 at 5,000 ft/lbs).
In the end, however, the most important element of using CIEpM to determine whether a rifle is banned or not is that it would end the practice of using rifle bling (e.g., things that make a rifle look bad-ass, but actually aren’t dangerous) as the defining characteristics of ‘assault weapons.’ This was a central problem in the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, and continues to be a problem in the revised assault weapons ban currently on the table. Using the CIEpM to determine whether a rifle is, or is not, legal would use the characteristics that actually make a gun dangerous to determine whether a gun was too dangerous to be available to the general population. That, at least, would be a step forward.
I'm glad this thread is back on track and the discussion is very good with lots of good links and facts added for research. I certainly hope Gerard is continued to be allowed to post as he's had some very good thoughts, even though they may be contrary to those on the more right side of the spectrum. He is, after all, a gun owner and more to the left so I would think his perspective all the more valuable.
The links that BPBrinson posted were very interesting. I think that there's a couple of things to consider. One is that unfortunately bad things happen and can't be prevented. Unfortunately that's not a salve for the parents of Sandy children and it's also not something that would make a politician popular - but it is the truth. Secondly, these things are pretty rare. Again, the same thing could be said.
To me part of what makes this discussion interesting is that it reframes a question. What is it we are trying to do? Prevent children from dying or prevent them being slaughtered in a mass murder like Sandy or Columbine? If we're concerned about children dying we would implement seat belts on school buses and we would put more effort and resources into driver education. The same day as Columbine a school bus ran off the road and as many children were killed but we still talk about Columbine.
To me, someone more center left but also a gun owner, I find the NRA's stance is almost insulting in it's ability to passively aggressively not offer real solutions - but then that's their job; to oppose any legislation.
In the link above from the CDC one of the things that was mentioned in reducing the number of guns being brought into schools that was effective was installing metal detectors. Armed guards wasn't mentioned. The NRA's answer to anything is just more guns and I think that's why they are effectively useless to the conversation. Their answer post 9/11 was to arm pilots - as if a 35,000' shoot out in a pressurized cabin with untrained people pulling the trigger in a crowed environment was the answer. It wasn't and isn't. In fact the only effective thing to come from 9/11 was secured cockpit doors. Simple and effective.
Columbine had an armed guard as well. Didn't prevent it. I'd also argue that perhaps, like Sandy, nothing would have. Except, perhaps, secured doors on the school or classrooms. It might not prevent such a tragedy but it could certainly help to mitigate the results - more than as Assault Weapon ban.
The suggestion that gun owners are liable is also not going to prevent the Sandy tragedy - he shot the gun owner first. Who are you going to sue now? The aspect of that suggestion that has value though is to require all gun sales to go through an FFL. I've not heard a reason why this wouldn't be helpful. At some point a weapon crosses from being legally owned to being illegally owned and then involved in a crime. It's not, as many believe, that they're being stolen*
I think there are still ways that gun violence can be reduced and it's a valid discussion to have. I'd really like to know why the gun violence is so much higher in the US compared to places like Canada and Australia (but not Switzerland thanks to the links above) and what can be done. I also think that something like Sandy is a tragedy that nothing being discussed might have prevented except for a far better mental health system - something we as a country are not working to improve.
Gregor
*http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... /guns.html
The links that BPBrinson posted were very interesting. I think that there's a couple of things to consider. One is that unfortunately bad things happen and can't be prevented. Unfortunately that's not a salve for the parents of Sandy children and it's also not something that would make a politician popular - but it is the truth. Secondly, these things are pretty rare. Again, the same thing could be said.
To me part of what makes this discussion interesting is that it reframes a question. What is it we are trying to do? Prevent children from dying or prevent them being slaughtered in a mass murder like Sandy or Columbine? If we're concerned about children dying we would implement seat belts on school buses and we would put more effort and resources into driver education. The same day as Columbine a school bus ran off the road and as many children were killed but we still talk about Columbine.
To me, someone more center left but also a gun owner, I find the NRA's stance is almost insulting in it's ability to passively aggressively not offer real solutions - but then that's their job; to oppose any legislation.
In the link above from the CDC one of the things that was mentioned in reducing the number of guns being brought into schools that was effective was installing metal detectors. Armed guards wasn't mentioned. The NRA's answer to anything is just more guns and I think that's why they are effectively useless to the conversation. Their answer post 9/11 was to arm pilots - as if a 35,000' shoot out in a pressurized cabin with untrained people pulling the trigger in a crowed environment was the answer. It wasn't and isn't. In fact the only effective thing to come from 9/11 was secured cockpit doors. Simple and effective.
Columbine had an armed guard as well. Didn't prevent it. I'd also argue that perhaps, like Sandy, nothing would have. Except, perhaps, secured doors on the school or classrooms. It might not prevent such a tragedy but it could certainly help to mitigate the results - more than as Assault Weapon ban.
The suggestion that gun owners are liable is also not going to prevent the Sandy tragedy - he shot the gun owner first. Who are you going to sue now? The aspect of that suggestion that has value though is to require all gun sales to go through an FFL. I've not heard a reason why this wouldn't be helpful. At some point a weapon crosses from being legally owned to being illegally owned and then involved in a crime. It's not, as many believe, that they're being stolen*
I think there are still ways that gun violence can be reduced and it's a valid discussion to have. I'd really like to know why the gun violence is so much higher in the US compared to places like Canada and Australia (but not Switzerland thanks to the links above) and what can be done. I also think that something like Sandy is a tragedy that nothing being discussed might have prevented except for a far better mental health system - something we as a country are not working to improve.
Gregor
*http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... /guns.html