Gun Control

[Bugfatty300]

Blunderbuss would be a shotgun, though severely outmoded.

Though I guess if you didn't have choice, they're still sold: http://www.veteranarms.com/ReproductionMuzzleloadersandFlintlocks/Brass-Barrel-Doglock-Blunderbuss.html

 

[Borachio]

Just because we do it all the time doesn't mean I agree with it. I don't really agree with driver's licensing laws or other licensing regulation either. In most cases, I think ma

<snip> but I'd sooner trust individuals with the decision than I would trust government.

I've been thinking a bit more about this.

I quite like the whole libertarian stance to be honest. If only it'd go to its logical conclusion.

It would be very nice indeed if only people were sufficiently conscious and responsible in their actions so that government of all kinds was entirely unnecessary. (Even then, some kind of government is surely necessary just to organize human effort at the geographical national level.)

The fatal flaw of libertarianism it seems to me, is that people just aren't sufficiently civilized to allow a free-for-all.

What would happen if all forms of gun control were abolished entirely? Wouldn't the US more than likely just become one huge Wild West? A situation that didn't last for more than a handful of years simply because law and order in the form of US marshals was pretty quickly established in the frontier areas. Or is this all just a myth?

So, in the end, it all comes down to an argument about just how much government is necessary. No government: too little. Big Brother: too much. So the line lies somewhere in between.

How about everyone arguing it out till the cows come home? It's something to do, after all.

Oh right, I nearly forgot: And the number of people who can safely drive a motor vehicle on the road without any sort of tuition is very, very small.

 

[Bugfatty300]

What would happen if all forms of gun control were abolished entirely? Wouldn't the US more than likely just become one huge Wild West? A situation that didn't last for more than a handful of years simply because law and order in the form of US marshals was pretty quickly established in the frontier areas. Or is this all just a myth?

Actually it is a myth. The western frontier was typically no more violent than the east was. It was not even close to the anarchy we see portrayed in movies and television.

Anyway I know you were mostly making a point about GW's extreme libertarianism but I'll just take this chance to say that evoking the "wild west" is a poor argument for or against guns. Conflating that time and place with a lack of gun control is just plain unhistorical.

 

[Borachio]

OK. Never let it be said that I don't take every opportunity to resort to poor arguments.

Nevertheless, myths can have a powerful influence. And the myth of a land without formal government is strong in the Land of the Free. I suggest.

 

[Farm Boy]

If guns are supposed to be some kind of equalizer, what about people with really bad eyesight? My dear old mother is as blind as a bat, she couldn't hit anything with a semi-automatic. I think a grenade launcher would be more appropriate for her.

It probably would be a better equalizer yes. But alas, even egalitarian purity can surrender to costs if I perceive them to be too high. Call me inconsistent. I've been putting my lines at weaponry that creates sustained area suppressive fire and explosions. In order to properly and effectively use that level of force you usually need squad based tactics, or at least the only reason you would need that particular level of force would be to repel squad based tactics, and that level of violence does actually seem to be in the domain of requiring communal response. If we had drug cartels(or whoever) regularly laying siege to law-abiding private houses/compounds and the police were unable, unwilling, or too inept to attempt to stop this perhaps I would reassess.

As for the landmines - interesting argument. However as both I and the legal system seem to usually agree that lethal force is not an appropriate response to property violation the mines are probably over the top. The neighbor's Fluffykins wants to take a dump in your yard and it splodes? Inappropriate response. Perhaps you could make an argument for a spring trap that she sets up around herself, but she's going to have to continually deactivate them where she isn't.

I'm disappointed, no caricatures of the equalizer argument requiring biological or nuclear weaponry? Or have people actually been reading the whole thread and didn't just want me to vomit out a copy paste of an old post?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Actually it is a myth. The western frontier was typically no more violent than the east was. It was not even close to the anarchy we see portrayed in movies and television.

Anyway I know you were mostly making a point about GW's extreme libertarianism but I'll just take this chance to say that evoking the "wild west" is a poor argument for or against guns. Conflating that time and place with a lack of gun control is just plain unhistorical.

While the Hollywood movies clearly over hype how pervasive gun violence actually was, men frequently tried to settle their disputes by attempting to kill each other in duels, not just in the West or the Eastern US but in Europe as well. Guns were such a problem in some towns in the West that they were indeed prohibited and collected by the authorities.

It is yet another example of how pervasive "gun control" has always been. How nobody even thought to claim that their rights were being trampled when they could no longer get drunk and shoot up the town on the weekends.

 

[GhostWriter16]

What's so wrong with the duel?

I dueling could have prevented the Iraq War, I'd be all for it...

For the record, I don't actually support people dueling to the death, but it was much less evil than total war.

 

[El_Machinae]

No, I think a simple shotgun would be much more satisfactory.

you should know that the spread from a shotgun is not wildly different from an automatic at close-quarter-battles ranges. It's not a 'spray and pray' weapon.

 

[MobBoss]

you should know that the spread from a shotgun is not wildly different from an automatic at close-quarter-battles ranges. It's not a 'spray and pray' weapon.

You've obviously never tried to shoot ducks at long range...

And shotguns can be semi-auto as well. So yeah, you can indeed do 'spray and pray' with one until you run out of ammo if you think your shoulder can take it.

 

[Flying Pig]

Yes, but El-Mac's point is that you'll miss, since he doesn't think that the spread of shotgun pellets at bayonet range is all that much bigger than the area of a bullet. He's wrong, but it's a valid point - if you've tried shooting DTL, you'll probably have realised that although the target's bigger if you shoot it early, your spread isn't.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't think you should need permission from the State in order to drive. I think that's an immoral system.

The state owns the roads, though, doesn't it? And if I understand your views on private property correctly, it's within its rights to dictate who gets to drive on them, and under what conditions.

Perhaps there's an argument for certain licensing rights to be transferred from the federal government, giving that some roads are the property of county, municipal and state governments rather than federal governments (although such a system seems ungodly complicated), but not for removing them altogether.

 

[Farm Boy]

you should know that the spread from a shotgun is not wildly different from an automatic at close-quarter-battles ranges. It's not a 'spray and pray' weapon.

A hacksaw can fix that, but it's very much frowned upon. Something about that area fire weaponry thing I keep harping about if I'm not totally mistaken.

 

[Bugfatty300]

you should know that the spread from a shotgun is not wildly different from an automatic at close-quarter-battles ranges. It's not a 'spray and pray' weapon.

It depends on the shotgun/loads involved but yeah, typically at close ranges the spread will be be marginal. However a clump of nine .32 caliber buckshot projectiles is going to be far more devastating than multiple single bullets from a typical handgun and peripheral wounds will be much more debilitating. So the margin of error in round placement becomes much more forgiving for someone with a shotgun. Of course, in close-quarters it's not like aiming is going to be much of a factor. Most shotguns don't even have sights for aiming.

 

[peter grimes]

The state owns the roads, though, doesn't it? And if I understand your views on private property correctly, it's within its rights to dictate who gets to drive on them, and under what conditions.

Perhaps there's an argument for certain licensing rights to be transferred from the federal government, giving that some roads are the property of county, municipal and state governments rather than federal governments (although such a system seems ungodly complicated), but not for removing them altogether.

Any ownership other than private ownership is premised on THEFT. Therefore their claim is rejected, therefore Nobody should have to prove to the state that they are fit to drive. The free market will solve any resultant problems.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It depends on the shotgun/loads involved but yeah, typically at close ranges the spread will be be marginal. However a clump of nine .32 caliber buckshot projectiles is going to be far more devastating than a single bullet. Peripheral wounds will be much more debilitating. So the margin of error in round placement becomes much more forgiving for someone with a shotgun. Of course, in close-quarters it's not like aiming is going to be much of a factor. Most shotguns don't even have sights for aiming.

It is still aiming if you hold it up to your cheek and sight along the barrel. It is even aiming if you shoot a handgun from the hip.

Here are some interesting buckshot patterns at 15 yards using different ammo. Notice that in 2 of the shots that two of the pellets didn't even hit the target:

 

[Flying Pig]

Spreads that small? I stand corrected.

 

[Ajidica]

I don't think you should need permission from the State in order to drive. I think that's an immoral system.

Seriously? There are enough terrible drivers on the road right now* I can't imagine how bad it would be without needing a license.
*Seriously. Bimbos who don't use turn signals are worse than the lovechild of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot rolled into one.

 

[Farm Boy]

Spreads that small? I stand corrected.

Depends on where you are, but there are usually restrictions on civilian shotguns that keep them from performing in the sawed-off range. A couple guys I know own ones that are designed as weapons for defense. Most people I know who own shotguns that are old style farm/hunting guns that they probably would take with them to hunt ducks or go to the skeet range with. They just change around the shells depending on what they're doing. From what I understand at least. VR would know better than myself.

 

[Commodore]

Seriously? There are enough terrible drivers on the road right now* I can't imagine how bad it would be without needing a license.
*Seriously. Bimbos who don't use turn signals are worse than the lovechild of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot rolled into one.

Just drive around downtown Kabul and you'll see how bad it can be when drivers don't have to be licensed. I swear it is a complete free-for-all out there (especially when you hit the traffic circles).

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes, but El-Mac's point is that you'll miss, since he doesn't think that the spread of shotgun pellets at bayonet range is all that much bigger than the area of a bullet. He's wrong, but it's a valid point - if you've tried shooting DTL, you'll probably have realised that although the target's bigger if you shoot it early, your spread isn't.

A hacksaw can fix that, but it's very much frowned upon.

But the Taurus Judge has been noted to have a wicked high spread for the .410 shots.

It depends on the shotgun/loads involved but yeah, typically at close ranges the spread will be be marginal. However a clump of nine .32 caliber buckshot projectiles is going to be far more devastating than multiple single bullets from a typical handgun and peripheral wounds will be much more debilitating. So the margin of error in round placement becomes much more forgiving for someone with a shotgun. Of course, in close-quarters it's not like aiming is going to be much of a factor. Most shotguns don't even have sights for aiming.

Even playing with the choke, you should have a spread of less than a foot, easily. I guess that's a bit more of a spread. But, I see the point you were making.

For sheer stopping power in a home-defense setting, the shotgun is easily the best weapon. 20 gauge #3 buck would give you, what? 20 pellets penetrating 12 inches? That's a lot of wound channels.