The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[TheMeInTeam]

I would have thought the obvious thing to legislate is the commercial transfer of weapons. Allow any entities involved in the chain of custody of a weapon to be sued for any harm that comes from the use of said weapon. It clearly does not infringe on the right to KEEP and BEAR arms

Derp
Moderator Action: If you are going to go to the trouble of quoting a straight forward remark, you should make an effort to actually make a response. "derp" can easily be seen as trolling or insulting. Saying nothing is a better response. -Birdjaguar

I'm not really sure what qualifies as an "assault weapon".

They aren't either. It's a meme term that people take seriously, and should be given about as much credibility as a typical 4 chan meme.

If you point an "assault" gun (whatever that allegedly means) at someone and pull the trigger, they are likely to die. If you point a "non-assault gun" at someone and pull the trigger, they are still likely to die. Hand guns are more easily concealed than long barrel guns, which is probably why they are more popular tools for crime. By an overwhelming margin. You wouldn't think that by observing legislation targeting guns in recent years, however.

Also not sure I'm convinced this would be particularly effective as aren't most gun crimes committed with handguns? Starting to think this is more about political theatre

Yes, and yes.

Their unnecessary proliferation for both criminal and political reasons is beyond imagining and far beyond the whatever concept the founders would have thought.

Citation needed, especially wrt founders. Citizens in late 1700s could use weaponry much more consistent with top-of-the-line than is allowed now, and I doubt founders would have considered literally every US citizen owning a rifle, handgun, or both to be a problem. Didn't private citizens outright own cannons back then even?

Removing the burning and looting mess of 2020, violent crime in the US had been trending down for decades if I'm not mistaken.

As for similarities to abortion law, it's worth pointing out that the constitution affords no specific protection to abortions. That said, I am against arbitrary restrictions on people, and abortion laws seem arbitrary. You have to draw the line somewhere on them, and I'm not sure where that line should be. But for the state to impose sanctions on people, it needs reasoning for the line it draws.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Citation needed, especially wrt founders. Citizens in late 1700s could use weaponry much more consistent with top-of-the-line than is allowed now, and I doubt founders would have considered literally every US citizen owning a rifle, handgun, or both to be a problem. Didn't private citizens outright own cannons back then even?

Removing the burning and looting mess of 2020, violent crime in the US had been trending down for decades if I'm not mistaken.

As for similarities to abortion law, it's worth pointing out that the constitution affords no specific protection to abortions. That said, I am against arbitrary restrictions on people, and abortion laws seem arbitrary. You have to draw the line somewhere on them, and I'm not sure where that line should be. But for the state to impose sanctions on people, it needs reasoning for the line it draws.

Late 18th C weaponry was certainly common and % wise maybe a higher percent owned a rifle and a pistol than today, but I doubt anyone in that era envisioned the massive firepower available today. Rifles and pistols were flintlocks and one shot affairs that took time and focus to reload. Mass shootings were not possible unless you had a mass of gunmen. Rifles were used for hunting and war and protection from Indians. They were fully integrated into the lifestyle of they because they were needed. Hunting has become recreational, the frontier and Indians tamed, and the threat of civilians fighting in a war delegated to a standing army. I'm sure owning a cannon was possible, but unless you had a trained gun crew, it was mostly a fire once weapon.

The next advance in gun weaponry came in the 1820s and was the percussion cap to replace the flintlock. It added reliability and could be fired in any weather. It did not change the deadliness of the weapon and many old flintlock were converted to percussion cap unts in the years prior to the Civil War. There was no anticipation of the future of weapons or sci fi imagination of what the future would hold. You fired your gun and focused the next minute on reloading or, more likely, in a non war setting, drew your knife to meet the attacker or attack oneself.

 

[Farm Boy]

If somebody shot you then, you spent the next minute dead or figuring out if you were dying. It hasn't changed much except not all gut wounds are fatal now.

 

[Samson]

Late 18th C weaponry was certainly common and % wise maybe a higher percent owned a rifle and a pistol than today, but I doubt anyone in that era envisioned the massive firepower available today. Rifles and pistols were flintlocks and one shot affairs that took time and focus to reload. Mass shootings were not possible unless you had a mass of gunmen. Rifles were used for hunting and war and protection from Indians. They were fully integrated into the lifestyle of they because they were needed. Hunting has become recreational, the frontier and Indians tamed, and the threat of civilians fighting in a war delegated to a standing army. I'm sure owning a cannon was possible, but unless you had a trained gun crew, it was mostly a fire once weapon.

The next advance in gun weaponry came in the 1820s and was the percussion cap to replace the flintlock. It added reliability and could be fired in any weather. It did not change the deadliness of the weapon and many old flintlock were converted to percussion cap unts in the years prior to the Civil War. There was no anticipation of the future of weapons or sci fi imagination of what the future would hold. You fired your gun and focused the next minute on reloading or, more likely, in a non war setting, drew your knife to meet the attacker or attack oneself.

I am not sure I get this argument. We are talking about a couple of hundred years into the gunpowder revolution and the start of the industrial revolution. Gun effectiveness had been going up with technology, and technological and economic development were really starting to boom. Can we really say that the intellectuals of the time could not have envisioned the trend continuing?

 

[Birdjaguar]

The red elbow on your chart is 1900 not 1800. The founders were writing in the 1780s. killing capacity per hour was below 50 until the civil war. What would astute thinkers have thought in 1800 about the future of guns? Rifling added accuracy but slower fire rates. Caps added reliability of firing.

 

[João III]

The red elbow on your chart is 1900 not 1800. The founders were writing in the 1780s. killing capacity per hour was below 50 until the civil war. What would astute thinkers have thought in 1800 about the future of guns? Rifling added accuracy but slower fire rates. Caps added reliability of firing.

Is your argument that guns today are different than in the 18th century, so therefore they must be treated differently? Couldn't the same then be said of regulation of the press, free speech, etc.?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Is your argument that guns today are different than in the 18th century, so therefore they must be treated differently? Couldn't the same then be said of regulation of the press, free speech, etc.?

Yes, they are different and have many orders of magnitude of killing power now over 200 years ago. In addition, they function differently in society now than they did 200 years ago. I also contend that no one in the 1790s could have foreseen the changes or how they would impact US culture. So, yes, they should be treated differently today than 200 years ago.

Speech and press? Yes. But. Until, 20 years or so ago, the press technology and impact have changed far less than that of guns. Radio has not changed much either in 100 years. Attitudes and what people say has, but both function much as they did when invented. The internet and the advent of widespread fake news and misinformation has changed the dynamics of what it means to speak freely. That is likely to be under serious review review given what we have seen in the past decade. The problem as is usual, is that people want to abuse new technology and speech platforms to influence others in a bad way and for personal gain at the expense of their listeners. Today's platforms are both diverse and far reaching and converging. This makes misuse more dangerous and widespread. Politics didn't used to be so dominant. Now it can be all consuming and money makes it all worse. So yes, freedom of speech is up for review and it is needed. The impact of the decisions brewing will not be know right away in the same way that the repeal of the fairness doctrine opened the door for a deepening divide between Dems and the GOP with the Tea Party.

 

[Farm Boy]

The red elbow on your chart is 1900 not 1800. The founders were writing in the 1780s. killing capacity per hour was below 50 until the civil war. What would astute thinkers have thought in 1800 about the future of guns? Rifling added accuracy but slower fire rates. Caps added reliability of firing.

Spoiler I think they knew :

...and that's still movie-tame. They were good at killing each other. The super spikes came from machine guns, and we've made those blanket illegal federally since a minute ago. Well, new ones, I guess. Because hey we're weird. But yeah, machine guns are a pretty bad idea to have set up on public streetcorners and whatnot.

 

[amadeus]

Citation needed, especially wrt founders.

https://allthingsliberty.com/2014/08/disarming-the-disaffected/

This is an interesting read, it's about how the colonies confiscated the guns of the "disaffected," that is to say Americans who would not pledge their allegiance to the Revolution. If we're trying to grasp what the intent of the founders was, I'd say it was first and foremost protecting the Republic, not the interests of specific individuals.

 

[Birdjaguar]

At least they got the actual effects of cannon fire correct. Cool clip.

Even a well armed militia would not have stood a chance against well armed, well trained troops with cannon in an open square. Warfare in Europe was different than in America. Armies were smaller, there were fewer large open areas to deploy. If the Founders were anticipating war, OK, a militia makes sense, but I do not think they were anticipating machine guns and AR 15s.

 

[Birdjaguar]

https://allthingsliberty.com/2014/08/disarming-the-disaffected/

This is an interesting read, it's about how the colonies confiscated the guns of the "disaffected," that is to say Americans who would not pledge their allegiance to the Revolution. If we're trying to grasp what the intent of the founders was, I'd say it was first and foremost protecting the Republic, not the interests of specific individuals.

But wait, taking guns away from people is unAmerican! Muh freedum!

 

[amadeus]

But wait, taking guns away from people is unAmerican! Muh freedum!

Time to put on my tricorner hat!

These men, Humbl'd before God, found it both Neffecary and Proper to disarm any Freedman who wou'd, in their capacity to do so, threaten the Publick Safety, and Security of the Republic. The Privilege of carrying arms into the Populated Settlements wou'd be, in many localities, restricted to the Constabulary and militia as so apportioned by the State.
​

The Virginia Constitution specifically mentions encouraging blacks to take up arms against their white masters as a grievance against King George III. So gun control was certainly a part of colonial life, just not all colonial life. As well in the 19th century West, where it wasn't so much rootin'-tootin' as it was the sheriff would toss you in jail if you brought your gun into town.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

https://allthingsliberty.com/2014/08/disarming-the-disaffected/

This is an interesting read, it's about how the colonies confiscated the guns of the "disaffected," that is to say Americans who would not pledge their allegiance to the Revolution. If we're trying to grasp what the intent of the founders was, I'd say it was first and foremost protecting the Republic, not the interests of specific individuals.

And now, those who threaten the republic in a direct sense (IE ignore its constitution) are trying to take that same property.

To HAVE a republic, you need to protect individual rights. It was designed to prevent the situation that led to the revolution.

 

[Spidernova]

This may save some discussion:

I'm not really sure what qualifies as an "assault weapon". Also not sure I'm convinced this would be particularly effective as aren't most gun crimes committed with handguns? Starting to think this is more about political theatre, at least with Newsom.

On a somewhat related note, I wonder if gun rights groups maybe respond by marketing themselves as "pro-choice"? Maybe they would have better messaging by spinning gun rights as "the right to choose to bear arms"

IIRC, cali defines assault weapons as semi-autos with detachable mags, and 2 of a list of "military style features" ranging from pistol grips to barrel shrouds. Cali has bizarre and arbitrary gun laws anyway, so this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who lives there.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

But wait, taking guns away from people is unAmerican! Muh freedum!

Since nobody here made an argument that way, perhaps saying nothing would have been a better response to what was quoted?

 

[Birdjaguar]

https://allthingsliberty.com/2014/08/disarming-the-disaffected/

This is an interesting read, it's about how the colonies confiscated the guns of the "disaffected," that is to say Americans who would not pledge their allegiance to the Revolution. If we're trying to grasp what the intent of the founders was, I'd say it was first and foremost protecting the Republic, not the interests of specific individuals.

But wait, taking guns away from people is unAmerican! Muh freedum!

Since nobody here made an argument that way, perhaps saying nothing would have been a better response to what was quoted?

idk, it seems my post fit nicely with what amadeus posted. His great post certainly deserved a response. It was new to me.

 

[amadeus]

And now, those who threaten the republic in a direct sense (IE ignore its constitution) are trying to take that same property.

To HAVE a republic, you need to protect individual rights. It was designed to prevent the situation that led to the revolution.

I’m not sure how I view guns/rights as a contemporary issue, to be fully forthright. My point isn’t about that so much as it is the framers’ vision of constitutional government and the actions they took weren’t always consistent in a textualist reading of the document.

 

[amadeus]

And if we're on the subject of dangerous weapons, then I think we need to start looking at Jimmie "J.J." Walker and his alarming preoccupation with dyn-o-mite.

 

[Arwon]

Australia managed a buy back program that was successful, but I am not convinced that would work as well in the US.

Also there's still like millions of civilian of firearms here, right wing American memes nonwithstanding. There's just also licensing, registration, and storage requirements.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Furthermore, if soldiers rolled into an American town in an armored personnel carrier, themselves armed to the teeth, and they went door-to-door confiscating weapons I have no doubt they would succeed.

That depends greatly on your definition of "succeed". There is no doubt in my mind that such a thing would result in the confiscation of large numbers of weapons. There is also no doubt in my mind that such a thing would result in a large number of shootouts, deaths, and possibly even another Civil War. I'm totally unconvinced that a Civil War, and the resulting number of deaths is worth confiscating everyone's guns in order to ostensibly reduce the number of deaths due to school shootings, other mass shootings, and general gun violence. I suspect that this is a hill that a lot of my countrymen would be willing to die on.