I don't mean to derail. I'm just insisting that the number isn't zero. Self-rationalizing, maybe, but it let's me be an advocate for assisted suicide.
The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control
- Thread starter Lemon Merchant
- Start date
-
- Tags
- all guns suck
I don't mean to derail. I'm just insisting that the number isn't zero. Self-rationalizing, maybe, but it let's me be an advocate for assisted suicide.
Back. *waves* I thought we were calling it "common-sense gun safety" now, rather than "gun control"?
Sidenote, while I've long competed in Bullseye pistol competition, in the past couple years I've started doing "practical" pistol competition as well, USPSA and Steel Challenge, so if anyone has any questions about either, please do shout.
Sidenote, while I've long competed in Bullseye pistol competition, in the past couple years I've started doing "practical" pistol competition as well, USPSA and Steel Challenge, so if anyone has any questions about either, please do shout.
It's still common sense safety
great to see you!
Backatcha, buddy!!
And, oh boy, getting right into the heart of the matter again, eh?
Haha! I guess the problem with being a second amendment advocate is that people remember the time that you said that legalizing rocket launchers would be an improvement.
Straw man aside ( I'm very proud of my bomb best argument ) I think the actual debate is whether changing magazine capacity would save lives. And I think, whether having unregulated gun access and open borders between states makes it easier for people of bad intent to get guns
Straw man aside ( I'm very proud of my bomb best argument ) I think the actual debate is whether changing magazine capacity would save lives. And I think, whether having unregulated gun access and open borders between states makes it easier for people of bad intent to get guns
Estebonrober
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 5,867
a) the debate should be about magazine capacity and round velocity but its not unfortunately
b) open borders does make gun access easier for bad guys. bad guys in mexico who are getting very nice weaponry from the States
and we're off!
Okay, I'll reply later about mag capacity. There's a thread on a gun-board where a criminologist who does all brass identification for his city police department has been showing types and occasionally sources of guns used in or collected relating to crimes that some of you might find really interesting.
But... round velocity? That's honestly a new one by me. What is there to debate, or perhaps more precisely, how would one restrict things by that?
Broken_Erika
Play with me.
Pffft! Personal Nuclear Arsenals for every citizen!
Privatize nuclear deterrence!
Estebonrober
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 5,867
I know magazine reductions aren’t going to stop the majority of gun crimes. That’s not the purpose of the restriction. It’s to stop the mass shooting death toll. The same purpose to the velocity of rounds because the higher the velocity the more deaths. Both of these are achievable without gun bans or ever restrictions. I’ve advocated that any high velocity rounds or high capacity magazines be kept at ranges or registered gunsmith locations so the paranoid can still keep their arsenals.
"the higher the velocity the more deaths" - That's what I'm not getting, could you elaborate?
And crack about the paranoid aside (am I one of them? I have a high-cap magazine for my pistol), I don't think you're at all clear about how intrusive one would have to be to restrict high velocity rounds, which is why I'm asking you for clarification. What do you consider high-velocity? Is it per caliber? Rifle-only? Are you really talking about muzzle energy?
Estebonrober
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 5,867
So high velocity cause more damage and thus more death. If you need me to site a paper explains that I can find one, but I think it’s common sense. Yes the guns muzzle velocity. So high velocity rifles I would reduce magazine capacity substantially while pistols would generally be higher. Also high velocity rounds themselves would be restricted from home storage.
the idea being that the guns available for mass shootings that end in 40 dead would be hard for people to get and use in the lead up from their ideation to execution.
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/what-kind-of-guns-do-the-bad-guys-carry.847899/
A couple of (semi)anecdotal findings by the police tech of interest, one being that something like a quarter of guns used in crimes are stolen (more than half are "straw purchases"), the other being that bad guys tend to prefer high-capacity magazines. The latter is hardly a surprise - all things considered, would you prefer a larger gas tank for your car, whether you're driving the kids to soccer practice or running drugs up the interstate?
I'll admit that it's difficult for me to be unbiased about magazine restrictions. Yes, I'm a libertarian and so dislike government regulation more than most, and I experienced the weird grey market of hi-cap mags during the AWB years. But more to the point, every few days I go down to the basement and practice dry-fire for competition, that includes changing magazines as fast as possible. I go to competitions and watch other people swap magazines faster than you can blink. Taking the "battle effectiveness" and libertarian ideology arguments out of it, the "we'll inconvenience a million people in order to maybe save a couple dozen lives because mass-murderers might screw up a reload" argument is just one I have trouble being enthusiastic about, especially when I look around and see the convenience-vs-danger idea not being applied to things like, for example, swimming pools. Surely everyone would be happy to have mandatory breathalyzers built into car ignitions if it saved a couple hundred DUI-related deaths annually, right?
Estebonrober
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 5,867
i won’t address your illogical discussion bringing up other things that involve accidental deaths vs gun deaths. It’s a dumb road and serves no purpose but to distract. I will say that my idea is far from perfect and tries to address the issue without bans. I understand well trained people can rapidly change clips, that’s not who performs these mass murders though.
That's not always true. For example: a 9mm round fired from a pistol generally has a slower muzzle velocity than a 5.56 round fired from an AR-15. Yet the 9mm round has the chance to explode someone's head while the 5.56 can just rip right through a target without causing much damage. And I've seen the latter happen. We were in firefights where we had to shoot someone 7 or 8 times before they would go down because the rounds would just go right in and out of them without causing much internal damage because the round was moving too fast.
Um, okay. I think I'm confused because there's a sort of classic debate (in the gun owner community/forums) about whether 9mm is "effective enough" for personal defense, versus say a .45ACP. And a 22LR is uniformly regarded as better than nothing, but only by a bit. And for clarification, 22LR at 1250fps is higher velocity than 9mm (1100fps) and both are higher than a .45ACP round at 850fps. The "more damage/death" where pure velocity is concerned (both handguns and rifles) is generally in the hunting realms, and even then it's "muzzle energy", not just velocity.
I disagree with the use of your phrase "without bans". Or maybe you're just not clear about how difficult it would be to enforce effectively enough to matter.
Last edited by a moderator:
For the untrained, manufacturers will just create tools to help people reload faster. This is what happened in California when they tried to ban detachable magazines. Manufacturers created a tool that allowed people to load from the ejection port that actually turned out to be significantly faster than changing out magazines.
Stolen guns can supply a black market, I think this will always exist. Only diminished by forcing people to be liable for their stolen guns, and that's not easy. The additional problem of being able to easily sell legally purchased guns, though, is that you suddenly have a huge black market for anyone willing to pay a markup on retail prices. Good luck reducing gun crimes in a city when a gun can be driven from a different state super-easily, I think.
I'm also biased on the magazine-size, since I live in a place with restrictions on magazine. And, well, I don't really care. It's not actually onerous.
I think most states do have laws for this. In Ohio, for example, I believe it is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison for failure to report a stolen firearm within 24 hours of when you noticed it was stolen.
It's a necessary step. But the reporting absolves you of your liability. I don't see a way of reducing stolen guns feeding the black market without ratcheting up the liability. The easiest kluge is higher homeowners insurance if you don't have proper storage, I guess. I'm not saying I have any suggestions or solutions.
My view is also colored by the fact that over half of guns used in crimes are obtained via straw purchasing, and attempted or even successful straw purchasing is very rarely prosecuted (source: that thread I quoted, I'll try harder to find more sources if anyone really doubts me/this). If deliberately going and illegally buying a gun on someone else's behalf (and yeah the form everyone has to fill out at the gun store asks all the questions explicitly) is not worthy of police investigation, then prosecuting someone for not storing a gun adequately where someone else is committing a crime against them (stealing their gun) seems unfair, and "home inspections of gun storage" excessively intrusive.
Close the "gun show loophole" coherently, and crack down on straw purchasing hard, and I'll view greater focus on secure gun storage as reasonable.
I recently saw a stat where just under half of guns committed in Massachusetts originated from out-of-state, and the most common source (besides Mass) was Georgia.
Similar threads
- Poll
