The Second Amendment

[mattiasNYC]

Because Lott's entire existence is predicated on a belief that the only effective gun control is no gun control.  So perhaps he is not the best source of Truth in the things he believes can't possibly work.

It goes back to the quote (paraphrased): you can't convince a man to believe something if his paycheck depends on him not believing it.  Lott (and Exxon) both fail this test.

Yepp.

 

[bruno2000]

So what in the article are you saying is inaccurate?

 

[JohnRoberts]

I'd rather not re-enter the mud wrestling pit, but on topic, there is likely reason to review two new, current issues.

#1 Bump stocks.... These avoided the automatic weapons regulation on a technicality (not a weapon by itself). But they are clearly not good for anything but bad, so should be regulated, outlawed. No serious gun guy would use these...

#2  Data sharing... there has been an obvious breakdown in alerting authorities to the bad history of the TX shooter that should have precluded him from buying weapons. Not only did he injure family members, he reportedly escaped from a mental facility. Either one should throw up a red flag in his file.

Congress will likely investigate these and take action, if the harpies drop their typical knee jerk response to reverse the 2nd amendment (topic of this thread).

JR 

 

[bruno2000]

I have fired a "bump stock" equipped firearm, and they are ridiculously inaccurate  and a waste of ammo.  I agree they should receive Class 3 designation along with "hand crank" trigger attachments.
Best,
Bruno2000

 

[mattiasNYC]

Bump stocks were clearly an advantage in Vegas. If you have a huge mass of people and you want to hit as many as possible, the only logical approach is 'more bullets into the group is better'. At that distance the shooter would have been far worse off firing single shots with precision as the crowd started to panic and disperse rather than just as many as possible into that big mass of people.

But again, this is all a borderline pointless conversation. The point I think remains is that either we allow weapons to be owned or not. And if we do we either draw a line somewhere or we don't. And if we do draw the line somewhere then there's a discussion to be had not just about where the line should be drawn, but rather what line of reasoning we should employ to figure out where it should go.

If we end up in a position where we shouldn't own hand grenades and surface-to-air missiles because the magnitude of potential harm outweighs possible benefits then that argument needs to be tested for all weapon-types, not just for those specific ones. And so we inescapably end up having to face whether or not being able to own an AR-15 or similar really does benefit society more than it being illegal, and the same would apply all the way down to a pistol or revolver. That's where land.

And so bump stock or no bump stock and whether or not something is called a "machine gun" is inherently far less interesting and valuable a conversation than whether or not this weapon ownership is a net benefit for society.

 

[bruno2000]

But again, this is all a borderline pointless conversation. The point I think remains is that either we allow weapons to be owned or not.

"Weapons" or firearms?  A screwdriver can be a weapon.  Here we go with "definitions" again.........
Best,
Bruno2000

 

[bruno2000]

There seem to be over 300 million firearms legally owned in the US, with over a billion rounds of ammo.
Your solution?
Best,
Bruno2000

 

[mattiasNYC]

"Weapons" or firearms?  A screwdriver can be a weapon.  Here we go with "definitions" again.........
Best,
Bruno2000

Yeah, well, what do you think? Do you think people who want to ban weapons are talking about screwdrivers?

"We" who are criticizing America's gun legislation talk about weapons using the definition that a "weapon" in this case is a device created for the purpose of causing damage, not screwing screws.

I mean, was this not obvious?

There seem to be over 300 million firearms legally owned in the US, with over a billion rounds of ammo.
Your solution?
Best,
Bruno2000

What's yours? Allow anyone to own any type of gun or weapon they want? No legislation at all?

In pretty much any other category of products we take potential harm from usage very seriously. If you put out a toy that can harm a child it can result in serious consequences for the manufacturer. Or take smoking and legislation banning it in public. We do this for obvious reasons. Then it comes to other products where harm is again visible in statistics, but we consider the benefits of the product and whether or not there's a net gain in keeping them. So in the case of cars that's how we feel about it. But we still acknowledge the harm they can cause and choose to limit usage to people that are sufficiently mature, and on top of that we mandate that people get an education to use those things. And if they misuse them their license can be revoked.

With guns however all this common sense appear to break down completely. It would seem entirely reasonable to require a minimum age,  a background check, a physical / psychological exam, an education on the weapon, specified mandated storage requirements and so on. Not so however. The powerful weapons-sales lobby will 'bully' politicians into not agreeing to further restrictions, and the general population is properly indoctrinated into thinking that owning these guns enhances their freedom and safety.

As for actually banning and getting rid of a broad individual ownership of weapons the one place where it could be started is no longer allowing sales of weapons, and start destroying them as they turn up in crimes. Eventually the supply would be depleted, assuming the borders are secure and the weapons deteriorate.

The one thing we appear to know with relative certainty however is that a status quo will continue to allow individuals and criminal organizations to kill a large amount of people using said weapons. We can try to improve the situation, or we can throw our hands in the air and pretend that nothing will make things better, so let's just leave it as is....

So again: What's your recipe here?

 

[Tubetec]

Practically one firearm for each man woman and child then.
What I dont understand is ,the second was laid down in a time where it took minutes to reload and fire just a single round ,now you have weaponry available to almost anyone capable of firing thousands of rounds per minute. Once the 'my gun is bigger than yours' mentality creeps in  ,its almost impossible to turn back the clock .

There was a time in this country (Ireland)where gun ownership was a lot more common , typically the head of the household held a revolver ,as more peacefull times came the government offered amnesties, and allowed the firearms to be turned in to Garda(police) stations  without too many awkward questions being asked. In the late 60's troubles kicked off in the north and state of the art weapons (the armalite rifle) found their way off US military bases and into the hands of paramilitaries. The standard issue guns the British army had at the time were antiques in comparison . Its widely accepted now that 'Whitey' of Boston mafia fame who also appears to have been a CIA asset at some point was the man behind putting the armalite into the hands of the IRA. Thankfully these days main stream Irish republicanism is committed to exclusively peaceful means , still  a certain segment of hardliners exist,  although racketeering ,bank jobs,smuggling, coercion and subterfuge seems more their game than freedom fighting.

 

[bruno2000]

Yeah, well, what do you think? Do you think people who want to ban weapons are talking about screwdrivers?

"We" who are criticizing America's gun legislation talk about weapons using the definition that a "weapon" in this case is a device created for the purpose of causing damage, not screwing screws.

I mean, was this not obvious?

What's yours? Allow anyone to own any type of gun or weapon they want? No legislation at all?

In pretty much any other category of products we take potential harm from usage very seriously. If you put out a toy that can harm a child it can result in serious consequences for the manufacturer. Or take smoking and legislation banning it in public. We do this for obvious reasons. Then it comes to other products where harm is again visible in statistics, but we consider the benefits of the product and whether or not there's a net gain in keeping them. So in the case of cars that's how we feel about it. But we still acknowledge the harm they can cause and choose to limit usage to people that are sufficiently mature, and on top of that we mandate that people get an education to use those things. And if they misuse them their license can be revoked.

With guns however all this common sense appear to break down completely. It would seem entirely reasonable to require a minimum age,  a background check, a physical / psychological exam, an education on the weapon, specified mandated storage requirements and so on. Not so however. The powerful weapons-sales lobby will 'bully' politicians into not agreeing to further restrictions, and the general population is properly indoctrinated into thinking that owning these guns enhances their freedom and safety.

As for actually banning and getting rid of a broad individual ownership of weapons the one place where it could be started is no longer allowing sales of weapons, and start destroying them as they turn up in crimes. Eventually the supply would be depleted, assuming the borders are secure and the weapons deteriorate.

The one thing we appear to know with relative certainty however is that a status quo will continue to allow individuals and criminal organizations to kill a large amount of people using said weapons. We can try to improve the situation, or we can throw our hands in the air and pretend that nothing will make things better, so let's just leave it as is....

So again: What's your recipe here?

A hammer can cause "damage".  Lets regulate hammers.

We already have minimum age,  and a background check, but since the data on the Texas man was not passed on, that failed.  A physical / psychological exam is OK but by whose standards?  The NRA supports an education on the weapon, and specified mandated storage requirements should be common sense.

The powerful weapons-sales lobby will 'bully' politicians into not agreeing to further restrictions, and yet the existing restrictions didn't work out very well due to lazy / incompetent application. Yes, I believe that owning guns enhances my freedom and safety, as well as sport enjoyment.

YMMV.

"As for actually banning and getting rid of a broad individual ownership of weapons the one place where it could be started is no longer allowing sales of weapons, and start destroying them as they turn up in crimes. Eventually the supply would be depleted, assuming the borders are secure and the weapons deteriorate."

That will take an absurdly long time.  There are firearms that are 100 years old, and still function perfectly.  "Assuming the boarders are secure?  You've GOT to be kidding.

Best,
Bruno2000

P.S. Of the 300,000,000 legally owned firearms in the US, how many are involved per year in the commission of a crime?

 

[bluebird]

That will take an absurdly long time.  There are firearms that are 100 years old, and still function perfectly.  "Assuming the boarders are secure?  You've GOT to be kidding.

We kind of already went over that and it does seem somewhat impossible. PRR suggested to stop selling ammo to the public since it goes bad after awhile, but there are problems with that too.
I have to say there are things like Ivory that are illegal to sell but people still own. This does have an effect on the survival of elephants.
If gun sales stopped it would be harder for a mentally ill person to get a gun if he couldn't just go to a gun show or wallmart and pick one up.
So yea guns would still be in the hands of people but their value would increase and they would be way harder to get. Seems pretty practical to me.

edit
Logically there would be less mass shootings and casualties if gun sales were illegal. This would be very difficult to disprove.

 

[bruno2000]

We kind of already went over that and it does seem somewhat impossible. PRR suggested to stop selling ammo to the public since it goes bad after awhile, but there are problems with that too.
I have to say there are things like Ivory that are illegal to sell but people still own. This does have an effect on the survival of elephants.
If gun sales stopped it would be harder for a mentally ill person to get a gun if he couldn't just go to a gun show or wallmart and pick one up.
So yea guns would still be in the hands of people but their value would increase and they would be way harder to get. Seems pretty practical to me.

edit
Logically there would be less mass shootings and casualties if gun sales were illegal. This would be very difficult to disprove.

Well here again it takes a LONG time for ammo to go bad.  There is WW2 (1940s) ammo that still works reliably well.....
It's awfully hard to prove a negative.
Best,
Bruno2000

 

[bruno2000]

Practically one firearm for each man woman and child then.
What I dont understand is ,the second was laid down in a time where it took minutes to reload and fire just a single round ,now you have weaponry available to almost anyone capable of firing thousands of rounds per minute.

There are no firearms legally available to citizens that can fire "thousands of rounds per minute".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_fire
Facts gentlemen, FACTS!
Best,
Bruno2000

 

[bluebird]

Well here again it takes a LONG time for ammo to go bad.

I agree, not a good solution.

But as a gun advocate, do you think mass shootings and casualties of mass shooting would eventually go down if gun sales were to completely stop?

 

[bruno2000]

I agree, not a good solution.

But as a gun advocate, do you think mass shootings and casualties of mass shooting would eventually go down if gun sales were to completely stop?

Well, I don't consider myself a "gun advocate", but I'll let that slide. 

Maybe, but not anytime soon.  I don't have an answer to the problem, but I think enforcement of existing laws is a start.  The guy in Texas should have NEVER had a firearm, but due to sloppyness / incompetence, he got one. 

I also think gun shows are bad.  They facilitate sales by individuals without the background check. (Personal experience)

I don't think mass killings will ever stop.  Take away the guns, use a car / truck.  There are just too many crazy / pissed off people.  Maybe it's the meds (or lack thereof)?

I find it interesting that out of the 300,000,000 legally in the hands of citizens, only a small fraction are used in illegal ways.

Best,
Bruno2000

 

[Tubetec]

Well slightly miss worded ,maybe I needed to drop in the phrase 'the equivalent of' in front of the statement I made .
Never discharged a firearm in my life ,never will .

 

[Matador]

Most guns used in crimes come from being sold from FFL holders illegally or illegally transferred from private citizens.  I don't understand why guns can't be regulated the same as automobiles:

1) A valid license required from the state, contingent on a written test being passed, and going in front of an instructor to demonstrate safety principles
2) Registration of firearms by serial numbers (already done to some limited extent), along with titles for ownership
2a) A real national database for #2, searchable by normal people (just like public VIN searches provided by NICB)
3) A 'change of title' required for transfer
4) Some basic traceability standards, like needing an electronic rifling profile attached to each firearm
5) Laws requiring the reporting of theft or loss
6) Being held responsible for firearms being committed in crimes if registered in your name and #5 not followed

More interesting ideas: having the bolt carrier assembly (and possibly the frame) RFID tagged to prevent scrubbing/modifications of serial numbers without destroying the part.  Similar to a VIN that can be tagged on a car frame, as well as on an engine block. 

 

[bruno2000]

Well slightly miss worded ,maybe I needed to drop in the phrase 'the equivalent of' in front of the statement I made .
Never discharged a firearm in my life ,never will .

Please explain "the equivalent of thousands of rounds per minute"
Thanks!
Best,
Bruno2000

 

[bruno2000]

Most guns used in crimes come from being sold from FFL holders illegally or illegally transferred from private citizens.  I don't understand why guns can't be regulated the same as automobiles:

1) A valid license required from the state, contingent on a written test being passed, and going in front of an instructor to demonstrate safety principles

That's a nice thought, but good luck getting that paid for.  And the folks who already own the 300,000,000 guns?

2) Registration of firearms by serial numbers (already done to some limited extent), along with titles for ownership

Already done.  EVERY firearm has its serial number and purchaser recorded by the selling FFL holder.

2a) A real national database for #2, searchable by normal people (just like public VIN searches provided by NICB)

Law enforcement only.  Done.

3) A 'change of title' required for transfer

agreed

4) Some basic traceability standards, like needing an electronic rifling profile attached to each firearm

This has been tried (micro engraving on the firing pin), and didn't work.

5) Laws requiring the reporting of theft or loss

Already in place.

6) Being held responsible for firearms being committed in crimes if registered in your name and #5 not followed

Already in place

More interesting ideas: having the bolt carrier assembly (and possibly the frame) RFID tagged to prevent scrubbing/modifications of serial numbers without destroying the part.  Similar to a VIN that can be tagged on a car frame, as well as on an engine block.

That would have to be one hell of an RFID to withstand the forces of a bolt carrier.  Bolt carriers are not considered "firearms" and can easily be changed out.  The "firearm" definition (legal) is actually the lower receiver.
Best,
Bruno2000

 

[bluebird]

Well, I don't consider myself a "gun advocate", but I'll let that slide. 

Sorry wasn't trying to label you.

Maybe, but not anytime soon. 

Well then society should look into prohibition of sales as an option because it may save innocent lives. Of course we need to look at the downsides as well and weigh them against the benefits.  Has a bill ever been drafted (with reasonable support) for the prohibition of gun sales?