I am surprised it's taken this long

[DarkLink]

The 'arm everyone' is kind of a misnomer, from overzealous members of, say, the NRA. Just like most entrenched political groups, you have to take it with a grain of salt, and most people, and even most gun owners, don't actually think that we should hand out guns to everyone. Most gun owners are fully supportive of the idea that everyone with a clean record should be able to purchase firearms and use them for self-defense, but they should have to take a safety class and a defense class, particularly for concealed carry use. That's more or less how it already works, but that's not to say we can't make some formalized improvements. Fixing the background check system is a big part of that. (edit: the arm everyone people are the equivalent of the left's ban all the guns people, you should ignore both).

As for your three claims:

1: automatic weapons - automatic weapons are already illegal, and/or extremely heavily regulated. There's been a grand total of one single shooting in the past 80 years with a legally owned automatic firearm, so whatever we're doing is working pretty well.

I assume you mean 'assault weapon' style firearms, though, which are legal and relatively common. Thing is, 'assault weapons' are just low-caliber semi-automatic firearms with certain cosmetic features. There's nothing that particularly distinguishes them from other semi-autos. Plus, hammers are literally used to kill people quite a bit more frequently than 'assault weapons'. Lightning strikes kill more people than 'assault weapons'. Banning 'assault weapons' specifically is like requiring cars to have lightning rods on the roof or something equally statistically absurd. On top of that, banning 'assault weapons' has historically had absolutely no effect on crime. We've tried it before, and multiple non-partisan studies found it had no statistically significant effect on violent crime. Other nations have done it, and even there the authorities have admitted they can't find any statistically significant effect on violent crime.

Ruling out a specific 'assault weapon' ban, you could try banning semi-autos. But that would never, ever pass. The Clinton Assault Weapons Ban literally lost Democrats both the House and Senate, possibly the presidency, and they couldn't renew it when it reached its sunset date. On top of that, the Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd Amendment specifically protects the individual right to own firearms, and if a total handgun ban is unconstitutional then a total semi-auto rifle ban certainly is as well.

And even ignoring the fact that such a ban will likely have no real effect on violent crime, and that it's politically unfeasible to pass, anyone should be able to see that if there is a problem with gun ownership it's with handguns, not rifles. The vast majority of shootings are done with handguns. Banning rifles in order to stop shootings is kind of like banning Lamborghinis in order to stop car crashes, it just doesn't make much sense.

2 - 10 round magazine limit: Guess what. The mass shooter in Connecticut? Legal 10-round magazines. Columbine? Same thing. In fact, Connecticut currently has a 10-round magazine limit. Same thing with California, which has several of the most violent crime cities in America.

The idea that a magazine limit is nonsensical. It's utterly pointless. Once you look at the actual numbers, it simply doesn't make sense.

3- improved mental healthcare: We're already working on this. It's part of Obama's executive orders, along with strengthened background checks, and it has the full support of most gun owners and the NRA. And unlike the previous two options, this one will actually do something to prevent crime in the first place, instead of utterly fail to address the problem.



This is why I never read the comments on the main page articles anymore. I mean he's right that semi-automatic weapons aren't needed, but the point of that is that tightening restrictions on who can own them is not necessarily unconsitutional. The 'need' issue is only relevant in that some firearms are a needed item for certain groups of people (sportsmen, farmers etc.)

But you have an argument to support your claim. Saying we shouldn't have semi-autos because they're not needed is a claim, and you have a rational argument to back it up even if I don't fully agree. This guy... not so much.


You'll never find faith in humanity looking on the internet DL

Think again :): http://www.today.com/moms/waiter-hailed-hero-after-standing-boy-down-syndrome-1B8038223


Edit:
Also, you should know magazines are really easy to make. They're mostly just a little plastic piece, a spring, and some bent sheet metal. Any machine shop could make a high capacity magazine, legally or illegally, for pretty cheap. Even if they didn't have blueprints, they would at worst end up with a magazine that just wasn't quite as reliable, but you'd still have plenty of rounds. Plus, there are already a lot of magazines floating round second-hand. They're not hard to acquire, just mildly expensive.

And 'assault weapons' are expensive, and they're not concealable. You can't buy a second hand AR15 for cheap and carry it around stuck down your pants. That's the big reason handguns are so much more common in crime than rifles of any type. You can get handguns for cheap, and hide them easily. Shotgun crimes are still rare, but you can chop off the stock and barrel and get good concealability and shotguns are inexpensive. Rifles, though, are expensive (a low-end AR can be $1000 easily, even more so that the demand has risen for them so much), and you can't just hack off the barrel and stock and conceal it.

[Deadlift]

Think again :): http://www.today.com/moms/waiter-hailed-hero-after-standing-boy-down-syndrome-1B8038223[/QUOTE]

That article really has the "feel good" factor.

[Deadlift]

But Darklink what would you propose if asked, to limit the amount of gun related deaths in America ? Besides the rather limited statement in the 1st paragraph of your reply to me.

I'm just trying to see if the rational gun owners of America have any practical ideas and views on improving gun control ?

I think as someone on the "outside" of the American gun culture, I find it quite hard to understand the pro gun argument. But I freely admit that's obvious because I haven't grown up in America and have no real insight into what the right to own a gun means to the average American. I'm certainly not trying to criticise, more really to understand.

[DarkLink]

There's some really good stuff here, too: http://notalwaysright.com/



Also, to counter the marching to muzzle gun violence article, here's this video again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0

The problem with a lot of people with ideas to stop gun violence isn't the intention, it's that they don't understand what's actually going on. They see "10,000 people are killed with guns every year in America" and think "oh, those pesky assault rifles". It's not the assault rifles. It's not. If you think it is, you're wrong. The video does a good job of highlighting just how ignorant the media (and by extension the public) is when it comes to the causes of violent crime. And instead of trying to address the real problems that can actually reduce violent crime, time and political capital are wasted on banning those assault rifles.

As an example, the marching to muzzle gun violence article relies on 1) America has a higher gun murder rate than most industrialized nations, and 2) the assumption that 'assault weapons' kill a lot of people. Problem is, 1) while we have a higher murder rate, we actually have a much lower violent crime rate than, say, England*, and 2) the idea that 'assault weapons' are the source of violent crime are flat out false.

The political agenda of liberals and the media is to ban 'assault weapons', not to reduce violent crime. We should be discussing how to reduce violent crime, yet we can't seem to get the discussion past the fact that 'assault weapons' are not the problem. Diane Feinstein and Obama are too busy trying to ban 'assault weapons', to ever actually address the genuine causes of violent crime. The fact that Obama has even considered action other than banning 'assault weapons' is remarkable in and of itself, but it's still a long ways to go before they acknowledge that 'assault weapons' are irrelevant and that we need to start addressing socio-economic issues and inequality


*The UK has 3.5 times as much violent crime than the USA, while the USA has about 3.3 times the murder rate. Not so simple a comparison is it? Plus, crime in the USA is very concentrated to specific pockets of impoverished inner city ghettos. Outside said ghettos, the USA's gun murder rate compares very favorably to most nations, despite the fact that gun ownership is much higher outside these violent neighborhoods than inside. Crime is much more evenly spread across the UK, because the UK doesn't have nearly as many large population centers to host impoverished ghettos. Frankly, getting rid of said ghettos is a much more relevant problem to murder and violent crime than 'assault weapons' ever will be, and getting rid of them has absolutely nothing to do with gun control.

[Nabterayl]

It's also obvious that Americans are not going to give up the right to own guns, but it must be possible to make some sensible changes that can help prevent some of the mass killing that seem to be a problem partly unique to America (I know we have had similar shootings here in Europe too but not to the same frequency).
I think we all agree (in this thread, at least) that there are sensible changes that can be made. Bear in mind, though, that mass killings are a statistically insignificant number of firearms deaths even in the United States. In 2011, for instance, Mother Jones lists (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data) 19 mass shooting fatalities in the U.S. We average about 30,000 firearms deaths per year (that is, we are talking about 0.06% of firearm deaths in 2011 were the result of a mass shooting). So when we talk about reducing gun violence, we need to be clear with ourselves: are we talking about reducing firearm deaths or about reducing mass shootings? Since the latter contribute a statistically insignificant amount to the former, it follows that our policy responses will be different depending on which we want to reduce.

If we are focused on mass shootings, then I think the problem is essentially one of "mental health," but I don't mean "mental health" as that term is currently understood. Most mass shooters are not "mentally ill" in the clinical sense (obviously, since as anybody who knows a truly mentally ill person can tell you, vanishingly few mentally ill have the werewithal to plan and execute a massacre). On the other hand, changing how we treat bullying, depression, and aggression in this country - working to remove stigmas in some cases, and impose stigmas in others (e.g., bullying doesn't really have a stigma in the U.S., and it probably should) would be my prescription for reducing mass shootings.


So having read what I have, I think there are some sensible compromises. Banning automatic weapons, magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and better education and mental health support in schools are just 3 examples I can recall from the above article that to me make sense.
Why automatic weapons? As a self-education exercise, I challenge you to find an example of a United States firearm death (just one; doesn't have to be a mass shooting) that was caused by an automatic weapon.

As to 10-round magazines, I don't think that's a sensible compromise. 10-round magazines were used in Columbine to fire 93 rounds from a single weapon before the shooting stopped. The argument for reducing magazine size is that time spent reloading reduces time spent killing, allowing victims time to flee or buying extra time for armed responders to arrive. This is not intuitive to me (again, cf. Columbine). Can you adduce any evidence that there is a material difference in deaths caused between a shooter who carries 100 rounds in a single magazine vs. a shooter who carries 100 rounds in ten?


For those writers in this thread who are pro gun ownership, what are your views and ideas on how to reduce the amount of gun related killings in America. I don't really subscribe to the "arm everyone" ideal that some of your more extreme pro-gun chaps are talking about.
I would like to add I am a big fan of America in general and have visited many times. I'm not anti America in anyway, if I had a chance I would be living there right now :)
In my view, sensible gun control starts with asking the questions, "What sort of weapon is most suited to gun crime?" and "What sort of weapons are actually most used in gun crime?"

The answer, as we have known for decades, is semi-automatic handguns. For reasons that probably deserve their own post (because they're more complicated than lay people give them credit for), neither can be banned in the U.S. under the constitution. So, assuming we don't want to spend the hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars it would take to amend the constitution in this regard, what else makes sense?

Background checks for private sales, for one. As I've enumerated in previous posts, the U.S. Department of Justice has known for decades that we have a large black market for guns in this country that fuels our gun crime. Attacking that seems like the most sensible policy goal if our overall objective is to reduce firearm deaths, and background checks for every sale of a firearm seems like a sensible step in that direction. Some of the president's other proposals also go to strengthening law enforcement's tools to attack the gun black market, and I'm definitely in support of those.

Going beyond the president's recommendations, I would actually support regulating handgun ownership more heavily than long gun ownership. Our gun death statistics have borne out for decades the self-evident truth that if you want to kill somebody illegally, the handgun is the obvious form factor of choice; just as self-evidently, if you want to prepare for a gunfight, the handgun is a lousy choice. The situations in which a handgun is a sensible choice for self-defense are really quite limited, in my view, so I would totally support requiring an extra level of certification (akin to, though not necessarily the same as, a concealed carry license) for handgun ownership.

Still, the biggest thing, in my view, is the gun black market. You've probably heard American gun nuts prattle on about how criminals can always get guns. The fact that our national idiots love that line makes it less weighty than it probably should be, I think; also, I suspect that foreigners tend to say, "Criminals can't always get guns in my country," which combined with the inherent unbelievability of our idiot gun nuts gives it even less weight. But in America, it really is true that, right now, criminals can easily acquire guns. It is also true that most of the guns used in American gun crime were acquired illegally on the aforesaid black market. These being the case in America at this time, I think any attempt to materially reduce American gun deaths has to start with attacking the black market.

[Godless Zealot]

There's some really good stuff here, too: http://notalwaysright.com/

As an employee of the retail sector there is a lot there I can relate too. :)


I think he meant the frontpage article I mentioned, Dr King and Merry Gun Nut Day.

The article didn't seem that bad to me either if a little out of place perhaps. Just had a quick trawl through the comments on that as well, you must be a real glutton for punishment DarkLink. ;)

[Deadlift]

Thank you Nabterayl. You gave me exactly what I was really trying to get at.

So basically your thinking is that if your government hits the black market gun sales, then this would go a long way to reducing violent deaths by shooting.

It's a complicated debate, more so for someone like myself looking in from the outside so to speak.

I think the sad fact is that if your country is able to reduce gun related deaths, your then likely to see a rise in knife crime instead, which I guess you know is a problem here that our governments have tried to tackle. Whilst here they are having some success it's evident that our ingenious criminals are now turning to Tazers bought from mainland Europe which are 10 times more potent than the ones issued to our police.
I think that Dark hits the nail on the head in that society in general needs to reduce poverty that the criminal element feeds off and that would go someway to reducing violent crime in our countries.
Utopian ideals maybe ?

[Psychosplodge]

You'll never find faith in humanity looking on the internet DL


Think again : http://www.today.com/moms/waiter-hai...rome-1B8038223

Stop ruining my idea of humanity.

[Nabterayl]

Thank you Nabterayl. You gave me exactly what I was really trying to get at.

So basically your thinking is that if your government hits the black market gun sales, then this would go a long way to reducing violent deaths by shooting.
Yeah, that's exactly my thinking. If I were a policeman instead of a lawyer perhaps I'd have more specific ideas about how to attack a black market, but I'm not.

EDIT: Of course, you can't hit sales without also making a serious effort to confiscate illegal guns already owned. I know some of our metropolitan police departments have had reasonable success with neighborhood sweeps targeted at just that, but I'm not a policeman so I can't really critique their methods. I suspect, though, that if you asked law enforcement how legislatures can help that sort of crackdown they would say not, "Give us new laws" but rather, "Give us more money."

[Nabterayl]

Regarding the constitution and what it guarantees ...

The case that almost everybody talks about these days with respect to the Second Amendment is DC v Heller (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CEYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.cornell.edu%2Fsupct%2Fhtm l%2F07-290.ZS.html&ei=KrEBUaS4O8XL2QWy_IC4BQ&usg=AFQjCNHIKaO0ThhKGxdJWKJw4lDUFaTg4A&sig2=qh6gDZn4TbQjq1s-lCVUvg&bvm=bv.41524429,d.b2I), which I link so you can read it for yourself (the PDF looks big, but there are only about 60 or so double-spaced pages of actual law in there, and almost half of those pages are footnotes).

A short but important bit of background: the Heller named in the case name was (well, is) a retired police officer who wanted to keep a loaded handgun, without a trigger lock in his house for self-defense. We don't know what other safety measures he proposed, or who else he lived with (I don't know about you, but my definition of "safe gun storage" changes depending on who is likely to visit my house and who else lives in my house). Had Heller been an active-duty officer, this would have been allowed under the capital's law; since he was retired, it was not.

The result of the case was that the capital's ban on handguns and the capital's ban on storing guns without a trigger lock or other method that would render the gun unavailable for self-defense were both struck down as violative of the Second Amendment. What is not often reported is why, which is of considerable interest when discussing (especially with foreigners) what gun control measures are legally practical in this country. Here is what I think is the meat of the opinion from a policy standpoint, from pages 56 and 57 of the opinion:


The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. ... It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon.

This language limits the scope of the case considerably. Heller doesn't really guarantee the right to own any particular gun. When asking whether a particular prohibition runs afoul of Heller, the question to ask is: "Does this ban amount to a prohibition of an entire class of arms that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for self-defense?"

For almost every prohibition, the answer to that question is no. One could probably ban rifles, shotguns, and carbines under this rationale (although it's possible that the Supreme Court would strike down such bans as well, I don't think Heller clearly indicates that it would do so). One could almost certainly ban any particular model of gun, so long as one did not ban so many individual models that the individual bans, taken together, prohibited an entire class of arms etc. However, when asking why America doesn't just ban semi-automatic weapons, this is a good reason. Americans do overwhelmingly choose semi-automatic guns for self-defense (for obvious reasons), and thus a semi-automatic ban would almost certainly run afoul of Heller.

On the other hand, bans are not really the sort of gun control law that most reasonable people talk about. As a thought experiment, one might ask whether the Second Amendment permits semi-automatic weapons to be regulated as heavily as automatic weapons are in this country. It well might. The court suggested at page 55 of the opinion that it was okay with existing regulation of automatic weapons (and by "regulation" we mean "very very close to banned;" the reason you can't buy or sell an automatic weapon manufactured prior to 1986 in this country is because in 1986 we prohibited civilians from buying or owning automatics not registered as of 1986, and the ATF stopped registering automatics as of 1986 - not technically a ban, but the next best thing). As the opinion says,


We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” ... It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause [ed. "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ..."]. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. ... But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

If it were all but impossible to own semi-automatics, as it is all but impossible to own automatics, would the court hold that we had effectively prohibited an entire class of arms overwhelmingly chosen by the American people for self-defense? I don't think that's crystal clear, which should give you foreigners an idea of just how much regulation the Second Amendment can probably tolerate.

[DarkLink]

Right. A really simple way of putting it (though going a little beyond the scope of that particular case) is "is it a type of firearm with significant use for legitimate purposes"? Handguns, rifles, shotguns, and semi-automatic rifles all have significant legitimate purposes, particularly self defense, hunting, and sport shooting. AR15s are the most popular rifle in America, and are regularly used for all three purposes by hundreds of thousands of people.

Until Americans give up such use, a total ban of, say, semi-automatics, is impractical. If the citizens give up semi-autos, then the government can ban them.


I think we all agree (in this thread, at least) that there are sensible changes that can be made. Bear in mind, though, that mass killings are a statistically insignificant number of firearms deaths even in the United States. In 2011, for instance, Mother Jones lists (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data) 19 mass shooting fatalities in the U.S. We average about 30,000 firearms deaths per year (that is, we are talking about 0.06% of firearm deaths in 2011 were the result of a mass shooting). So when we talk about reducing gun violence, we need to be clear with ourselves: are we talking about reducing firearm deaths or about reducing mass shootings? Since the latter contribute a statistically insignificant amount to the former, it follows that our policy responses will be different depending on which we want to reduce.

I don't think there is any policy that can truly stop mass shootings. They're so incredibly rare as it is, and they're all clearly cases of stuff slipping through the cracks, they're more like a natural disaster than a crime. Illegalizing earthquakes or tornadoes would be nice and all, but it won't do any actual good.



Why automatic weapons? As a self-education exercise, I challenge you to find an example of a United States firearm death (just one; doesn't have to be a mass shooting) that was caused by an automatic weapon.

There are some, mostly in Miami Fl. Drug runners tend to zealously protect their shipments, and so long as you can fly over to Africa and pick up an old soviet AK for $20, this problem isn't going away anytime soon. When you start talking fully automatic weapons used in crime, then you're looking at heavy hitters who can circumvent the most stringent of laws. And even still, this is all extremely rare. Probably over hyped too, because a lot of people assume "machine gun" when they see a lot of bullet holes despite the fact that it's perfectly possible to fire a few hundred rounds in a short period of time with multiple shooters using semi-autos.



As to 10-round magazines, I don't think that's a sensible compromise. 10-round magazines were used in Columbine to fire 93 rounds from a single weapon before the shooting stopped. The argument for reducing magazine size is that time spent reloading reduces time spent killing, allowing victims time to flee or buying extra time for armed responders to arrive. This is not intuitive to me (again, cf. Columbine). Can you adduce any evidence that there is a material difference in deaths caused between a shooter who carries 100 rounds in a single magazine vs. a shooter who carries 100 rounds in ten?

It takes a couple of seconds to reload. It's not enough time to flee, or to make any significant different unless the target has a gun to shoot back. It doesn't cost a shooter anything to have to reload frequently when shooting at unarmed targets. Plus, mass shooters almost always carry 3+ firearms, making reloading even easier.

It's also worth pointing out that real-life firefights are not nearly as fast paced as in the movies. Most people think of the Matrix lobby scene when they think of firefights, when in reality in most shootings only 5-6 shots are fired total. And go and watch some combat videos from Iraq or Afghanistan, you'll see that there's a lot of sitting in cover trying to figure out where the other guys are, or running from cover to cover maneuvering, and remarkably little actual shooting.

Then go to a shooting range, and try putting 100 rounds downrange as fast as you can. I've gone through 100 rounds of .40 S&W in less than 10 minutes before, firing at a casual pace. I only own 2 magazines, which means that not only do I have to swap mags but I also have to load up all those mags. Considering that most mass shootings last maybe 30 minutes, and that the shooters go through maybe 100 rounds total, it becomes readily apparent that a high capacity magazine ban just doesn't make sense.



The answer, as we have known for decades, is semi-automatic handguns. For reasons that probably deserve their own post (because they're more complicated than lay people give them credit for), neither can be banned in the U.S. under the constitution. So, assuming we don't want to spend the hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars it would take to amend the constitution in this regard, what else makes sense?

Ban all them murderous Assault Weapons, that's what!!!!!! :rolleyes:


The article didn't seem that bad to me either if a little out of place perhaps. Just had a quick trawl through the comments on that as well, you must be a real glutton for punishment DarkLink. ;)

I was having fun.



So basically your thinking is that if your government hits the black market gun sales, then this would go a long way to reducing violent deaths by shooting.

Pretty much. There's the background check thing that's been mentioned, and there are probably more measures that can be taken, but most of that is police work rather than new laws.



It's a complicated debate, more so for someone like myself looking in from the outside so to speak.

And it's certainly not helped by media or politicians, and no one is going to trust a lobbyist group like the NRA that has its own agenda, either. If people actually figured out how incredibly rare mass shootings are, despite the fact that it seems like a new one every week (only because they are so over-represented in media coverage), we might be able to have a productive conversation.



I think the sad fact is that if your country is able to reduce gun related deaths, your then likely to see a rise in knife crime instead, which I guess you know is a problem here that our governments have tried to tackle. Whilst here they are having some success it's evident that our ingenious criminals are now turning to Tazers bought from mainland Europe which are 10 times more potent than the ones issued to our police.
I think that Dark hits the nail on the head in that society in general needs to reduce poverty that the criminal element feeds off and that would go someway to reducing violent crime in our countries.
Utopian ideals maybe ?

Right. If you want to reduce crime, cut it off at its source. Violent crimes stem almost directly from poverty and similar social issues, not from access to the means to commit murder. Poor people have been killing each other with rocks and sticks for far longer than guns have been around. Reduce poverty, and you reduce violent crime.

Then we just have to deal with rich people and their white collar crimes:rolleyes:.


Stop ruining my idea of humanity.

:p

[DarkLink]

Just found this: http://www.guns.com/2013/01/22/anonymous-responds-to-obama-on-gun-control-video/

[Nabterayl]

There are some, mostly in Miami Fl. Drug runners tend to zealously protect their shipments, and so long as you can fly over to Africa and pick up an old soviet AK for $20, this problem isn't going away anytime soon. When you start talking fully automatic weapons used in crime, then you're looking at heavy hitters who can circumvent the most stringent of laws. And even still, this is all extremely rare. Probably over hyped too, because a lot of people assume "machine gun" when they see a lot of bullet holes despite the fact that it's perfectly possible to fire a few hundred rounds in a short period of time with multiple shooters using semi-autos.
I know there are a few, but I think that looking for them is a useful exercise to drive home how incredibly rare they are.


It takes a couple of seconds to reload. It's not enough time to flee, or to make any significant different unless the target has a gun to shoot back. It doesn't cost a shooter anything to have to reload frequently when shooting at unarmed targets. Plus, mass shooters almost always carry 3+ firearms, making reloading even easier.
I hear you on the multiple weapons, but I actually disagree about the "not enough time to flee." My opposition to "high capacity magazine" bans is based on my understanding of mass shooting tactical scenarios, which I admit is tenuous. A terrified person can sprint about what, 30 feet per second for very short periods of time? Let's say our hypothetical shooter can reload and resume aimed fire in two seconds - a reasonable estimate, I think, given that most mass shooters are reasonably practiced and not concerned with reloading their expended magazines (or, indeed, escaping). If the prospective victims were already in motion when the shooter had to reload, that's another sixty feet or so of distance before the shooting begins again. Sixty feet is nowhere near safe distance, but I do think it's material.

I remain opposed to "high capacity magazine" bans because, as I understand it, mass shooting victims are basically never in motion when the shooter has to, or would have to, reload. Of course, if that's just availability bias - if, in fact, mass shooting victims tend to be shot while fleeing - then I'd happily reconsider my stance.

While it's unlikely that a self-defense gunfight will last more than ten rounds, and even less likely that the need to reload would mean the difference between success and defeat for the resisting victim, it seems more likely to me that a "high capacity magazine" would benefit a resisting victim than that it would act to the detriment of a mass shooting victim. In other words, it seems like taking away something that might benefit a resisting victim for essentially zero benefit to other victims, and that does not seem like good policy to me.

[eldargal]

But you have an argument to support your claim. Saying we shouldn't have semi-autos because they're not needed is a claim, and you have a rational argument to back it up even if I don't fully agree. This guy... not so much.
Well that's what I was getting at, I can see what the guy mean't but he was just begging the question* and not actually providing any kind of evidence to support it nor engaging in a proper debate.

I actually agree with you that the main issue here is cultural rather than gun ownership itself, the problem is that changing a culture is much more difficult and time consuming than regulating/controlling weapons. I just think that controlling weapons (as opposed to banning them outright) is not against the second amendment.


*Which is a logical fallacy not 'raising the question' like most people think...

[Deadlift]

I do think it's quite dismissive when you guys quote statistics as far as deaths related to mass shootings in relation to the overall figure of gun related deaths. Of course I understand the percentages and statistics, but I do think it does cheapen the young lives lost too. It's an emotive debate for sure and as you guys have said deaths related to mass shootings are a drop in the ocean. Put when you factor in the media and public opinion it could be a recipe for change. To just regard the deaths of children as a percentage I don't think will help anyone win a debate.

I freely admit too, that as a non American and uninformed on the whole debate I am ignorant of all the facts but
I think Mark Twain said "there's lies, damned lies and there's statistics"

Don't get me wrong, if I were an American citizen I would most likly be a gun owner (actually I have held shotgun licences and my step father had a live round rifle license too) I am not anti gun really. Just would like to see an answer. But as we all agree, until you stamp out crime completely there will always be violent deaths, be it with guns, knives or any manner of house hold objects.

[Psychosplodge]

To paraphrase Stalin, "The death of twenty odd is a tragedy, the death of eleven thousand is just a statistic"

[Wolfshade]

I freely admit too, that as a non American and uninformed on the whole debate I am ignorant of all the facts but
I think Mark Twain said "there's lies, damned lies and there's statistics"

Twain attirbuted it to Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield, when he allegedly said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

[Deadlift]

Twain attirbuted it to Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield, when he allegedly said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Which truly proves that anything of quality in the world originated in Great Britain. Thanks Wolf :)

[Psychosplodge]

Ignore this, didn't read the post was replying to properly

[Wolfshade]

It's ok, I think I should justify why I know this however so it doesn't seem like I'm a nitpicker (note: that I don't seem, not that I'm not ;)).

Lady Ida Bridgeman (Lady of the Bedchmaber to Queen Anne) was the last member of the Bridgeman family (Earls of Bradford) to live in the traditional family home at Castle Bromwich Hall, she was frequently visited by Disraeli and consequently it's post office had the first telephone outside of London so he could keep up-to-date with parlimentary preceedings, but I digress, but my parent's house backs onto the Hall and grounds.
As part of local history at the village primary school we covered the Bridgeman family including Disraeli's visits and his famous alleged quote.

[eldargal]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpMshQ-7F5A

[Nabterayl]

I don't mean to be dismissive of mass shootings, Deadlift; I think "reduce the instances and severity of mass shootings in America" is a completely legitimate policy goal. It's just a different policy goal than the [equally legitimate] goal of "reduce gun violence in America." The fact that one causes more deaths than the other doesn't make it more important, but the radical difference in deaths caused and occurrences per year should suggest that the solutions will be radically different.

That makes using mass shootings as a call to reduce gun violence a tricky business. It may be worth doing anyway, but it should be handled with care (more care, I dare say, than is generally takn in America). You are saying, essentially, "Look at these apples! Aren't they bad? Don't they inspire you to solve the orange problem?"

Consider Newtown. The shooter steals a law-abiding gun owner's weapon, murders her with it, and goes on to murder more people before committing suicide. What are the lessons to be drawn from this? There are lessons, but obviously this is very different from most gun crime, so the lessons will not apply to most gun crime. Indeed, the lessons have essentially nothing to do with guns at all - unless we are prepared to say, "Oh, that dreadful murder victim, owning a gun! It's really just asking for somebody to steal it, shoot her with it, and go on a rampage, you know."

[DarkLink]

but I actually disagree about the "not enough time to flee."


I meant in the sense that public places are a target rich environment. Individuals may be able to flee, but there's a plethora of alternatives that won't be able to.


I do think it's quite dismissive when you guys quote statistics as far as deaths related to mass shootings in relation to the overall figure of gun related deaths.

So the question is, how do you stop mass shootings? You have to look at the question rationally. When you do so, you're faced with the uncomfortable truth that there isn't a whole lot you can do. What little you can, however, turns out to be something different from the obvious answer. So long as you get stuck on the automatic emotional response, you can't think clearly on the subject to come a genuine solution or understanding. So as dismissive as it may seem, if you want to actually address the problem you have to do your best to look at the numbers.

[Nabterayl]

I meant in the sense that public places are a target rich environment. Individuals may be able to flee, but there's a plethora of alternatives that won't be able to.
I think we're in agreement that the relevant question is, "Does having to reload materially degrade the shooter's ratio of shots fired to telling hits achieved," yes? If the scenario is a guy who opens fire from the middle of a crowd on a level field, whereupon everybody in the crowd immediately flees in panic, I can imagine that the second or two it takes to reload or switch weapons could cause a material decrease in the hit ratio (say, a 10% decrease in effective accuracy?). But that isn't what mass shooting scenarios look like.

My understanding of the tactical scenarios presented by various mass shootings is that the answer to that question in the real world is no, because for whatever reason the potential victims in the danger zone tend not to flee (or at any rate, enough victims tend not to flee - whether by their own choice or otherwise - that the shooter's effective accuracy is not degraded by having to reload or switch weapons). If anybody (in my life generally, not necessarily on BoLS) can point to reason to believe otherwise, I'd certainly reconsider my stance on "high capacity magazine" bans.

[DarkLink]

Here's an article I found listing reasons for a 'need' for 'assault weapons', if you scroll down a bit: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/daniel-zimmerman/gun-rights-advocates-put-the-pressure-on-pols/#comment-696157

A few standouts :

• Many women are truly gaining momentum in shooting sports due to the light-weight nature of these modern rifles.

• Modern sporting rifles offer modern materials with high tensile strength and light overall weight.

• A final supporting fact for the ‘need’ of an AR-15 style rifle is modularity. This platform is built with an automotive-manufacturing-style interchangeable parts system. This allows owners to customize their gun for their own shooting style or purpose.

• Adjustable stocks suit more than one person using it or different clothing options of the user (aka why belts have more than one hole, or bras have more than one clasp) [in particular, say you're a tall male with a short wife or girlfriend. An adjustable stock allows you both to shoot the game gun comfortably and safely]

The loudly proclaimed fact that these are the weapons of choice for mass murderers is deceptive. Statistical probability shows that the most common item is probably the item to be used. In other words, the single most common rifle in the US today is the AR-15 style rifle.

The Cumbria, England shootings of 2010 demonstrate that even with extremely strict gun control, a madman armed with a shotgun can kill 12 and injure 25.

This also serves to refute Senator McCarthy’s concept of restricting magazine capacity, as the shotgun did not hold greater than 10 rounds. [I][and shotguns are much, much slower and more difficult to reload than a rifle, since you have to manually reload each individual cartridge, rather than simply slap in a new magazine]

Restricting rights of lawful citizens to reduce sensation of fear and project a false sense of security lacks the “common sense” so often lauded by the anti-Second Amendment politicians and media.

To enable the ramrodding of this legislation, Senator Reid has negotiated a change to the senate rules with Senator McConnell. The trade off is the ability to propose 2 amendments to a bill. This is not a benefit, as the majority also get to propose 2 amendments and Senator Reid gets to decide what is valid and will be included. This a lose-lose proposition for the senate minority. [abusing the political process to get a questionable law passed is something everyone should be concerned with, pro-gun or not]

I would like to leave you with a quote to rebuff the needs argument. ”No one needs a military-style firearm anymore than Rosa Parks needed to sit in the front of the bus.” This is about Constitutional Rights and the expression of those rights. [I'm stealing this line in the future. Saying "Rosa Parks didn't 'need' to sit in the front seat, either" is quite the comeback.]

[Nabterayl]

That's a good comeback. In my social circle I'm usually the one defending gun control (e.g., "For ****'s sake, Uncle ___, "Barack Hussein Obama" is not secretly plotting to make ammunition illegal!") but I will totally remember that.

"Need" always leaves me scratching my head. Do I "need" the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure? It's not like I am presently afraid of that, after all. Do I "need" religious freedom? You can't take away my belief by making it illegal. Do I "need" a republican government? There are plenty of people right here on BoLS that are perfectly happy without one. I can't think of a single constitutional right - even ones that I prize much more highly than the right to keep and bear arms - that I "need." Doesn't mean I'd be okay with not having them.

Heck, do I "need" my wife? My daughter? I prize them even more highly than my most treasured constitutional rights, but I don't need them. Doesn't mean I'd be okay with not having them.

[Wildeybeast]

Here's an article I found listing reasons for a 'need' for 'assault weapons', if you scroll down a bit: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/daniel-zimmerman/gun-rights-advocates-put-the-pressure-on-pols/#comment-696157

A few standouts :

• Many women are truly gaining momentum in shooting sports due to the light-weight nature of these modern rifles.

• Modern sporting rifles offer modern materials with high tensile strength and light overall weight.

• A final supporting fact for the ‘need’ of an AR-15 style rifle is modularity. This platform is built with an automotive-manufacturing-style interchangeable parts system. This allows owners to customize their gun for their own shooting style or purpose.

• Adjustable stocks suit more than one person using it or different clothing options of the user (aka why belts have more than one hole, or bras have more than one clasp) [in particular, say you're a tall male with a short wife or girlfriend. An adjustable stock allows you both to shoot the game gun comfortably and safely]

The loudly proclaimed fact that these are the weapons of choice for mass murderers is deceptive. Statistical probability shows that the most common item is probably the item to be used. In other words, the single most common rifle in the US today is the AR-15 style rifle.

The Cumbria, England shootings of 2010 demonstrate that even with extremely strict gun control, a madman armed with a shotgun can kill 12 and injure 25.

This also serves to refute Senator McCarthy’s concept of restricting magazine capacity, as the shotgun did not hold greater than 10 rounds. [I][and shotguns are much, much slower and more difficult to reload than a rifle, since you have to manually reload each individual cartridge, rather than simply slap in a new magazine]

Restricting rights of lawful citizens to reduce sensation of fear and project a false sense of security lacks the “common sense” so often lauded by the anti-Second Amendment politicians and media.

To enable the ramrodding of this legislation, Senator Reid has negotiated a change to the senate rules with Senator McConnell. The trade off is the ability to propose 2 amendments to a bill. This is not a benefit, as the majority also get to propose 2 amendments and Senator Reid gets to decide what is valid and will be included. This a lose-lose proposition for the senate minority. [abusing the political process to get a questionable law passed is something everyone should be concerned with, pro-gun or not]

I would like to leave you with a quote to rebuff the needs argument. ”No one needs a military-style firearm anymore than Rosa Parks needed to sit in the front of the bus.” This is about Constitutional Rights and the expression of those rights. [I'm stealing this line in the future. Saying "Rosa Parks didn't 'need' to sit in the front seat, either" is quite the comeback.]



As is often the case, the facts have been 'interpreted' to suit the argument here. Derek Bird was driving around from village to village, pulling up his car, shooting a couple of people and then driving off somewhere else. In this scenario, the amount of rounds held in a magazine (or even the type of gun) was completely irrelevant as he had the ability to instantly flee the scene of the shooting and reload at his leisure. The police had no bloody clue who he was or where to look for him and the only reason he didn't kill more was for whatever reason he decided to stop and top himself.

[scadugenga]

A buddy of mine (who is both liberal and a 2nd Amendment supporter--and thus, anti "Di-Fi") pointed out a very interesting Supreme Court case from 1982. What it essentially boils down to is that the Constitution only guarantees us protection from officers of the State. It does not guaranty that officers of the State will protect us. Specifically Bowers v. DeVito. Verbatim:



We need not decide whether this distinction is valid, for there is an alternative ground on which the dismissal of the complaint against these defendants must be upheld. Section 1983 imposes liability on anyone who under color of state law "subjects ... any citizen ... or other person ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution ...," and thus applies only if there is a deprivation of a constitutional right. See, e.g., Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 699-701, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 1159-1160, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976); Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 146-47, 99 S.Ct. 2689, 2695-96, 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979); Bonner v. Coughlin, 545 F.2d 565, 567, 569 (7th Cir. 1976). There is a constitutional right not to be murdered by a state officer, for the state violates the Fourteenth Amendment when its officer, acting under color of state law, deprives a person of life without due process of law. Brazier v. Cherry, 293 F.2d 401, 404-05 (5th Cir. 1961). But there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order. Discrimination in providing protection against private violence could of course violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But that is not alleged here. All that is alleged is a failure to protect Miss Bowers and others like her from a dangerous madman, and as the State of Illinois has no federal constitutional duty to provide such protection its failure to do so is not actionable under section 1983.

https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/686/686.F2d.616.80-2078.80-1865.html

Basically, the police, while sworn to uphold the law, have no legal requirement to protect the populace.

[DarkLink]

Right, the police's job is to catch criminals, not protect the public. Subtle but important difference. On top of that, America is a pretty big place. So when seconds count, the police are just 5-30 minutes away.


As is often the case, the facts have been 'interpreted' to suit the argument here. Derek Bird was driving around from village to village, pulling up his car, shooting a couple of people and then driving off somewhere else. In this scenario, the amount of rounds held in a magazine (or even the type of gun) was completely irrelevant as he had the ability to instantly flee the scene of the shooting and reload at his leisure. The police had no bloody clue who he was or where to look for him and the only reason he didn't kill more was for whatever reason he decided to stop and top himself.

Oh, gee, you mean to say that, just like nab and I have been saying, that when the police aren't around to shoot back, reloading is no issue regardless of magazine capacity? Yeah, they totally picked a terrible example, didn't they. Edit: sorry, forgot to add the :p

[Wildeybeast]

Oh, gee, you mean to say that, just like nab and I have been saying, that when the police aren't around to shoot back, reloading is no issue regardless of magazine capacity? Yeah, they totally picked a terrible example, didn't they. Edit: sorry, forgot to add the :p

It wasn't a bad example, it was just the way it was being twisted to imply that the speed he had reloaded at had some effect on the amount of people he killed. He could have been armed with antique single shot rifle and it would have made no difference when he is driving up to people and shooting them at close range. If he had been on foot and in one place armed with a shotgun, the fatality rate would almost have certainly been much less due to the limited magazine capacity and the fact people would have been able to run and the police would have got to him much sooner.

[Nabterayl]

Wildey, that may be true, but I think the gun control point to be made about that sort of case is that he didn't. A mass shooter, by definition, is somebody who has planned a way to kill a large amount of people with a gun. One popular way to do that is by walking into a gathering of sequestered young people, but it's hardly the only way. A mass shooter doesn't have to plan to be on foot, or to do all his shooting in one place. Magazine capacity limits - even bans on detachable magazines themselves, which I can't imagine passing even one chamber of Congress - seem to assume that a mass shooter can't choose to be mobile and can't choose to attack more than one site. Neither of those things is true, which I think is what the example was intended to point out (and if not, I think it can be used to illustrate that point).

[Wildeybeast]

I don't think he planned anything, I think he just went mental, but I take your point. Anyway, has BO decided whether or not he is shipping Morgan off to Iraq yet? It all seems to have gone quiet on that front.

[Psychosplodge]

out of curiosity, can I have some American opinion on this (http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/1-self-appointed-gun-ambassadors-walking-around-with-ar-15s-freaking-the-hell-out-of-portland/news/2013/01/11/58170)?

[DarkLink]

It's illegal to carry a loaded firearm, but presumably it's legal to carry unloaded ones. You do have to transport firearms in one way or another.

The public was a whiny bunch of little *******s for freaking out from just seeing a gun. The idiots with the guns are the equivalent of door-to-door bible salesmen if they really are carrying around guns for the sake of 'educating the public' or whatever, and they don't seem to understand what the police's job is or the laws regarding carrying firearms. And the author seems to dislike gun owners as well. So the only people who aren't stupid or have an silly agenda seem to be the police.

In general, it's not like the mere presence of firearms is anything intimidating. People openly carry long arms in Israel often enough, though they're in a very different situation, with their different military service and gun laws: https://www.google.com/search?q=israel+guns&rlz=1C1LENN_enUS484US484&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=8GIIUYWBF4K5igK-q4DgCA&biw=1241&bih=593&sei=8mIIUb6KLMKEjALb34GADQ

There's not much reason to freak out just from seeing a gun, unless you have a reason to think it's about to be used. But most of America would react how the public in the video did, I think.

[Psychosplodge]

So is it unusual to have them that openly carried?
Or would that depend on geography?

[Nabterayl]

Well ... first off, I agree with the article that the police officers handled that very well. And while I think the gentlemen demonstrating (which is what I think exercising one's rights for no purpose other than to exercise one's rights is) talked like they had a chip on their shoulders, I think they did a good job on the whole of reacting to what these police officers were saying and doing instead of what past officers had [allegedly] said and done.

As for the notion of open carry, I really don't think that's a question of rights. Since that word doesn't really have a single legal or social meaning, to be clear - when I say "right," I'm referring to something that society agrees cannot be legislated away. I have no idea what the Oregon state constitution says on that matter, but I think the Supreme Court made clear in Heller that the federal constitution is absolutely okay with banning open carry (or even concealed carry). That doesn't mean it's good or bad policy, just that it's a question for states, counties, and cities to decide. Apparently Portland decided that openly carrying a loaded weapon without a concealed carry license is bad policy. My reaction to that is, "Good for them; they're supposed to decide, and they did."

I suppose, if I were asked to craft a carry policy, it would look pretty similar. I would certainly include a licensing requirement, which seems like the function of the concealed carry license (though I don't know what Oregon's concealed carry license takes to get, so I can't say if my ideal licensing requirement would be stricter or looser, but I'm willing to bet mine would be stricter). I would certainly include a requirement that the chamber be cleared (basic gun safety), and could probably be convinced that the magazine should be either detached or unloaded (it doesn't take long to load, but at least then there would be some visible distinction between somebody who is carrying a weapon and somebody who is about to shoot somebody). I might include a requirement that proof of compliance be shown to an identified police officer upon request. On the one hand, that certainly opens the door to harassment. On the other hand, I'm not sure it's good policy to require police officers to have more than a gut feeling to stop somebody who is openly carrying a gun.

The usual objection at this point, I think, is that carrying a gun is not inherently suspicious. I don't buy that argument any more than I buy the argument that a gun is "just a tool." People only carry guns (or in my policy land, only should be allowed to carry guns) because they are prepared to put an organism in a wheelchair, a coma, or a body bag. There are plenty of perfectly legitimate reasons to be so prepared, but none of them are precisely good. Killing a person, even in defense of an innocent victim, is not a good thing; it's only better than the alternative. If there are only legitimate, but no good, reasons for doing something, I think its at least reasonable that police be able to ask for proof of license simply because you are doing it.
EDIT: That is, in a populated area. I'm willing to put "killing a non-human organism for the purpose of eating it" in the "good, not just legitimate" column. So I would be totally fine with, say, requiring a person to show license on demand in an urban or suburban area, but have a higher standard out in the country.

A last reaction that has nothing to do with policy ... I wonder if those gentlemen would have inspired so many calls had they been carrying, say, Remington Model 700s. I don't know Portland very well, so perhaps they would have generated a slew of 911 calls no matter what kind of gun they were carrying. Still, I can't help but feel a bit suspicious that they generated a lot of calls because America, as a whole, simply doesn't know what firearms even look like in the modern era. While our gun enthusiasts are more educated, I think the public at large is still stuck in the 1960s, when hunting rifles and assault rifles could usually be distinguished by sight. Nowadays, it's fairly hard to tell from a person's rifle whether he or she is going to plink some cans, shoot some squirrels, shoot some deer, or is on maneuvers with the National Guard without getting a relatively close look at the gun (or being exceptionally knowledgeable). Americans, as a whole, still react to the AR-15 silhouette as if it were only available to (and suited for) front-line infantry, as opposed to the most popular sporting gun in America. That level of ignorance about a class of property given special mention in the constitution is shameful, I think.

EDIT:

So is it unusual to have them that openly carried?
Or would that depend on geography?
I think it's unusual, even in the most rural parts of America, to carry a long gun just because. What I think would vary by geography is the reaction it would inspire. From what I could see in the video, those gentlemen were not carrying their weapons in a manner that they could quickly ready them for use (like carrying a sword on your back - it's as unthreatening on your back as it is in your luggage). In some parts of the country, people would (i) recognize that, and (ii) wonder where those guys were going to or coming from. In other parts of the country (the majority, at least by population distribution), people would (i) not recognize that, and (ii) assume that there is at least enough of a chance of imminent mayhem that the police should be notified.

[DarkLink]

I should note that that was my unfiltered opinion, and mocking fear of the mere prescience of firearms. More like watching some kids skateboarding and laughing when they do something stupid, even if they don't hurt themselves*. If you want my more serious opinion, I pretty much agree with Nab on everything.


I will say this, though. Say you're driving to or from the shooting range with your AR, or on your way to a hunting trip, or something like that, and have to stop for something. There are places where you don't want to leave anything valuable in your car, and a quality AR with a good scope and all the accessories is worth several thousand dollars. So I wouldn't say there's never a reason to open carry a rifle, but you should probably just plan your trip better if that's a problem. And there's not much reason to carry a loaded rifle. When it comes to self-defense, handguns are almost always used because they're compact and concealable. You can carry them on your person relatively easily. Rifles or shotguns are limited to home defense, because of their bulk.


Edit:
*actually, parents suing schools for having "dangerous playground equipment" or something silly is a better comparison. On an unrelated note, when I was in elementary school, we played dodgeball on asphalt practically every day, and had a blast. When I went to middle school, we weren't even allowed to run on the playground without adult supervision. Overprotective parents suck.

[DarkLink]

On another note, I found this (http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/12/21/click-print-shoot-guns-made-on-3-d-printers-not-as-farfetched-idea-as-it-sounds/), which is pretty sweet. 3D printing is awesome. Doing a little research led me to an apparent renewed political interest in legislation on "undetectable firearms", though, which is another example of legislators not knowing what the heck they're talking about. Back in the 80's, when the Glock was first released, there was a big clamor about plastic guns, under the laughably ignorant assumption that Glocks, having a plastic frame, wouldn't show up on metal detectors. What wasn't mentioned was that the majority of the gun is still metal. Guns all have bolts, slides, barrels, and springs that all are made of metal, even if the grip itself is plastic. The assumption that 3d printing will make all-plastic guns possible is kind of sad (btw, there are metal 3d printers). Steven Israel apparently doesn't understand how firearms actually function. A plastic bolt and barrel will, at best, last a few shots. Plastics simply don't have the appropriate material properties to make a functional barrel.

It does bring into question the long-term efficacy of any gun control laws, though. When 3d printers become more common, it's inevitable that anyone can simply print out 90% of a firearm, and then all they need is a bolt, barrel, and maybe a few other miscellaneous pieces depending on the design. And those pieces can be made at most machine shops, though to make a high quality barrel you need some specialized equipment.

[Psychosplodge]

Thanks, They're both well thought answers, with reasonable points.

[DrLove42]

As a side note, i agree the faf about people mass producing their "own" guns is idiotic

But the point you make about only being able to make 2-3 shots before it breaks, in the right place 2-3 shots is enough.

Think i saw 3D printed guns on an episode of Castle a few weeks ago....

[DarkLink]

The question is, how are they supposed to ban it? Magically write software that is unhackable and prevents you from printing anything that looks like it could be a piece of a firearm? That would be like banning torrents on the internet, good luck with that. Anyways, I can't confirm but I'm pretty sure that even the printed gun that broke after 5-6 shots still required some metal parts. It's likely that he printed the receiver and magazine and stuck a standard bolt and barrel in the gun, and it was one of the plastic parts that broke. Most media sources don't seem to understand the difference between printing parts of a gun and printing a whole guns, though, so I couldn't find a definite answer with just a quick google search.

Also, it is possible to print metal, it just requires a different type of 3d printer. So it is possible to 3d print a complete firearm, but it certainly wouldn't be undetectable.


Edit: just found this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR3t7j2tUec

[DrLove42]

The whole policing of 3D printing, be it copyrights or more serious like this is a whole can of worms that is going to be nigh on impossible to handle

[DrLove42]

I say thank you to DL and Nabtyrl for their comments in this thread.

Its been good tosee the point of view from the other side, that isn't coming from a NRA hill billy. You've not changed my mind, but its changed my views on the subject matter in parts. And as they say....The More you Know.

I just wish that everyone in the states was so clear of sensible though some time (http://www.xbox360achievements.org/news/news-13985-Games-More-Dangerous-Than-Guns--Says-US-Senator.html)

[Psychosplodge]

Hardly surprising, consider this...
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/beliefs.jpg

[Wildeybeast]

Heh, Creationists are funny. I like the ones that built that 'museum' which uses 'science' to prove the Bible is literally true. They are now planning to build Noah's Ark (http://arkencounter.com/) (I'm unclear as to why exactly).

[DarkLink]

I just wish that everyone in the states was so clear of sensible though some time (http://www.xbox360achievements.org/news/news-13985-Games-More-Dangerous-Than-Guns--Says-US-Senator.html)

Funniest news article I ever read was one fact-checking the NRA, who had claimed that video games cause violence, and the the first comment was about Obamacare. It was one big non-sequitor. Normally, the media goes on about violent video games, conservatives criticize the media, and... well the unrelated idiotic comments are pretty normal. It was just funny to see the reversal.

[Wolfshade]

Heh, Creationists are funny. I like the ones that built that 'museum' which uses 'science' to prove the Bible is literally true. They are now planning to build Noah's Ark (http://arkencounter.com/) (I'm unclear as to why exactly).
I have issues with creationists, it can't literally be true given how Gen 1 & 2 give a different order of creation /sigh

[Psychosplodge]

It doesn't matter how many people believe violent games cause this, unless the muppet's in a position to actually do something about their beliefs...

Surely even if 0.01% of players were affected by it we'd be seeing hundreds or thousands of mass attacks? considering how many copies some of the biggest franchises sell?

[Wolfshade]

You also have to consider that historically most wars and murders have occured before video games

[Psychosplodge]

Well that's because war is caused by religion ;)

[Wolfshade]

Well that's because war is caused by religion ;)

Are you suggesting that the pope is secretly producing violent video games to cause people to do violent crimes and guns to enable these people to commit this acts to fund their own agenda?

[Psychosplodge]

I wasn't, but now that you mention it...

[Mr Mystery]

I have issues with creationists, it can't literally be true given how Gen 1 & 2 give a different order of creation /sigh

OMG! It's like the Wizarding World of Harry Potter! Just...you know.....far more disappointing once you actually get there I'd imagine.

[eldargal]

WWoHP is fantastic.

[Deadlift]

WWoHP is fantastic.

The one at universal ?

[eldargal]

Yep. Butterbeer is ftw.

[Kyban]

I didn't get any butterbeer :( but the main ride was excellent.

[DarkLink]

Are you suggesting that the pope is secretly producing violent video games to cause people to do violent crimes and guns to enable these people to commit this acts to fund their own agenda?

Obama's administration tried smuggling guns to mexican drug cartels to provide ammo (heh, pun) for gun control legislation. Luckily for him, he's not a conservative, so when it blew up in his face the media just kind of swept it under the rug.

Edit: Unfortunately, this is only halfway a paranoid conspiracy theory.


Edit 2:
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/540029_285099624953009_823047456_n.jpg

[Deadlift]

Well that's because war is caused by religion ;)

Christianity is based on one woman's lie about having an affair that got seriously out of hand.

[DarkLink]

And atheism is based on being a douchebag to anyone who believes in a god(s).

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Well I believe in the Nine Divines, so screw you all. :p

[DrLove42]

I consider myself a Dogmaist. The rules of faith from Dogma make the most sense out of everything out there

[Deadlift]

And atheism is based on being a douchebag to anyone who believes in a god(s).

I apologise, it was just a joke which wasn't ment to offend anyone. I just find the whole idea of religion and especially creationism unrealistic. If i ever thought thatvmy childrens schools were going to teach creationism in their classes there would be a problem. I know on your side of the pond you guys take your Christian beliefs a bit more seriously than over here in the UK. Whilst religion in all its forms when taught correctly can install positive moral beliefs, I also tend to think of those who are staunchly religious as being on the far right, with views on such things as capital punishment and abortion which I find repugnant. Christianity needs to look long and hard at itself and modernise or its going to die with its ever ageing congregations.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

I have a deep seated distrust of Christians because of the simple reason that my Dad claimed to be a sworn Christian, and where is he now?

Oh yeah, abandoning his family and generally lying about himself.

[Deadlift]

I have a deep seated distrust of Christians because of the simple reason that my Dad claimed to be a sworn Christian, and where is he now?

Oh yeah, abandoning his family and generally lying about himself.

I generally distrust most who are overly religious in any chosen faith. Extremists come in all faiths, but the one overriding fact is that unless you agree with their views your going to some kind of eternity of damnation.

[Wolfshade]

While this is a gun debate there are important things to remember.

1st, I can call myself King of Mercia but that does not make it so.

2nd, I do not recognise equating a staunch Christian with a member of the (far) right. If anything Christianity teaches left views, early churches lived as communes each pooling resources for the benefit of the whole group. Christianity was quite revolutionary as it proclaimed forgiveness for sins not condemnation. The views on abortion is not universally accepted, indeed even the church of rome is considering it's position on that.

[Deadlift]

Look up "the Christian Right"

Oh and good old Adolph Hitler considered himself a Christian.

[Wolfshade]

the Christian Right != Staunch Christian,

The Archbishop of Canterbury is a staunch christian but he is hardly right wing.

I could say I am a Hindu, but that doesn't make it so any more than me saying that I a power lifter.

[Deadlift]

the Christian Right != Staunch Christian

I see your point on that. But I still feel that were you find far right political thinking people, you will also find those same people as declaring themselves Christian.
Not all Christians are right wing, but the Right wing are mostly Christians.

[Wolfshade]

You should visit India, the Hindu nationals to the man aren't Christian ;)