Gun control - murderer control?

[Hurlshort]

3 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

it is difficult to write a meaningful law which prohibits scary looking guns which will appeal to the worst instincts o' people who might eventual consider a mass shooting.

perhaps require all firearms to be painted pink and adorned with a care bears motif? 

HA! Good Fun!

I know that is tongue and cheek, but I do wonder how people would react to restrictions on the aesthetics of guns. Packaging does matter. We restrict the way tobacco products are marketed, we don't let people put a bunch of spikes on their cars, so could we restrict the look of guns without running afoul of the 2nd amendment?

[Malcador]

What restrictions would you want that would matter, though ?

[Hurlshort]

3 minutes ago, Malcador said:

What restrictions would you want that would matter, though ?

I'm not sure. I guess it is like porn, you know it when you see it.  

[Gromnir]

Just now, Hurlsnot said:

I know that is tongue and cheek, but I do wonder how people would react to restrictions on the aesthetics of guns. Packaging does matter. We restrict the way tobacco products are marketed, we don't let people put a bunch of spikes on their cars, so could we restrict the look of guns without running afoul of the 2nd amendment?

not complete tongue-in-cheek. states may compel hunters to wear day-glow vests. if enough legislators believe there is a reasonable correlation 'tween the sinister appearance o' certain weapons and their use in mass shootings, am s'posing those sinister attributes could be prohibited. make certain all firearms is pink and coated in a paint resistant seal? can't very well claim your right to bear arms is abridged 'cause your weapon looks too childish or "girly."

but the core problem remains. you gotta make law with objective standards broad enough so is meaningful and is resistant to those who will find ways to circumvent. what makes ar-15 appearance so appealing? well, it is black. other than that, it gets tougher to objective explain what makes it scary.

and am knowing it sounds callous, but the mass shooting incidents involving ar-15 and weapons which look similar is a distraction to a much larger problem. tens o' thousands o' americans die in firearm homicides and accidents each year. the number o' deaths wherein an ar-15, or any long rifle is used, accounts for a tiny fraction o' those deaths. in point o' fact, blunt weapons not including human fists account for many more homicide deaths than rifles and shotguns per year, but every time a drunk man beats his wife and kids to death with a baseball bat there is no similar outrage against the louisville slugger folks. sure, the guy with the ar-15 and his admitted illegal ammo drum killed more people in a single incident, but...

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

[ComradeYellow]

7 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

the number o' deaths wherein an ar-15, or any long rifle is used, accounts for a tiny fraction o' those deaths

Probably true, but there's definitely more deaths from AR's than AK's here in the U.S.

[ShadySands]

A lot of "assault weapon" bans do focus a lot on the look of the guns as opposed to the function which is something I've always had a hard time with. For me it's a lot like breed specific legislation for dogs, typically "pit bulls" being defined by physical characteristics as opposed to genetics, and they both have a tendency for the worst people to gravitate towards them.

Edited April 21, 2021 by ShadySands

[Malcador]

Things like a pistol grip, barrel length don't seem purely cosmetic,  no ? 

[ShadySands]

It actually doesn't make much difference. The firing mechanism and general operation is exactly the same

E: Barrel length will actually make a difference but more in a target shooting way than in a mass shooting

Edited April 21, 2021 by ShadySands

[Malcador]

If they had restrictions on ammunition, does 2A still apply ? 

[Guard Dog]

11 minutes ago, Malcador said:

If they had restrictions on ammunition, does 2A still apply ? 

Actually there are many. Full jacket ammunition is illegal. Centerfire 50 caliber is illegal. Phosphorus tipped is illegal. There are others but those are the ones that come readily to mind.

[Gromnir]

'ccording to fbi, numbers o' homicide victims in 2017:

total firearms-10,982

rifles-403 (which included the vegas shooter, explaining the small but noticeable increase in rifle death totals from immediate preceding years)

knives-1,591

blunt objects (not fists)-467

personal weapons (hands, feet)-696

403 is not a good number. not suggesting we should ignore 403. however, if you believe we got a firearms problem, overwhelming focus on 403 is perplexing to us.

HA! Good Fun!

 

Edited April 21, 2021 by Gromnir

[Malcador]

9 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Actually there are many. Full jacket ammunition is illegal. Centerfire 50 caliber is illegal. Phosphorus tipped is illegal. There are others but those are the ones that come readily to mind.

Well then that's how the gun control people should approach it.  Chris Rock was on to something when he joked about bullets costing $1k, perhaps

[Guard Dog]

5 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

'ccording to fbi, numbers o' homicide victims in 2017:

total firearms-10,982

rifles-403 (which included the vegas shooter, explaining the small but noticeable increase in rifle death totals from immediate preceding years)

knives-1,591

blunt objects (not fists)-467

personal weapons (hands, feet)-696

403 is not a good number. not suggesting we should ignore 403. however, if you believe we got a firearms problem, overwhelming focus on 403 is perplexing to us.

HA! Good Fun!

 

I agree with you on this one. The real source of gun violence is handguns. But the thing everyone in the government is focusing on is rifles. It’s worthwhile to wonder why. Maybe because it is the in thing right now considering the rifle is the weapon of choice for mass shootings. Maybe it is other reasons I might speculate on. Although my thinking in those cases might strike you as indulging in conspiracy theories. And you might even be right.

 

Edited April 21, 2021 by Guard Dog

[ShadySands]

I don't disagree and I'd actually be okay with banning all handguns even though I own a few.

Something about how haphazard (not sure that's the right word) most assault weapon bans/proposals are bothers me. Like they don't have anyone that can read it over and be like this seems unenforceable and this is basically pointless or anything else. The obvious flaws and loopholes make me question if it's intentionally so or if they're just incompetent.

[Guard Dog]

1 minute ago, Malcador said:

Well then that's how the gun control people should approach it.  Chris Rock was on to something when he joked about bullets costing $1k, perhaps

One of the reasons I have stockpiled so many over the years. With the exception of my 6.5 mm Browning rifle because it’s ammunition this prohibitively expensive already, I could probably shoot 100 rounds a week every week and not run out of ammunition for years.

[Elerond]

27 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

It actually doesn't make much difference. The firing mechanism and general operation is exactly the same

E: Barrel length will actually make a difference but more in a target shooting way than in a mass shooting

I would say that barrel length makes some difference in mass shootings. As 20-25" barrel is quite bother in closed bases like schools, shopping centers and clubs, where 12-16" barrel is much easier to handle in such spaces.

[Guard Dog]

1 minute ago, ShadySands said:

I don't disagree and I'd actually be okay with banning all handguns even though I own a few.

Something about how haphazard (not sure that's the right word) most assault weapon bans/proposals are bothers me. Like they don't have anyone that can read it over and be like this seems unenforceable and this is basically pointless or anything else. The obvious flaws and loopholes make me question if it's intentionally so or if they're just incompetent.

The people who make gun laws don’t know **** **** about guns. Just listen to them talk about banning silencers. Put a silencer on a 45 and you’ll still hear it from four blocks away. You just won’t hear it from eight

Edited April 21, 2021 by Guard Dog

[ShadySands]

But they can't just hire an expert? 

[Malcador]

11 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

I agree with you on this one. The real source of gun violence is handguns. But the thing everyone in the government is focusing on is rifles. It’s worthwhile to wonder why. Maybe because it is the in thing right now considering the rifle is the weapon of choice for mass shootings. Maybe it is other reasons I might speculate on. Although my thinking in those cases might strike you as indulging in conspiracy theories. And you might even be right.

 

I think rifles are just more scary, or easily sold as being scary - "Weapons of war" and all that - and politicians want to be seen as doing something.  Don't think it's anything more nefarious than that, really.   

  

6 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

But they can't just hire an expert? 

I think you found yourself a career

 

Edited April 21, 2021 by Malcador

[Guard Dog]

6 minutes ago, Malcador said:

I think rifles are just more scary, or easily sold as being scary - "Weapons of war" and all that - and politicians want to be seen as doing something.  Don't think it's anything more nefarious than that, really.   

  

I think you found yourself a career

 

Yeah I hate that weapons of war description. That is so freaking stupid. An AR 15 has never been used on the battlefield. You know what’s ironic? In a display case on the wall of my office I have a colt navy 32 caliber cap and ball pistol. In my gun safe I have a Springfield .30-06 bolt action rifle. And a .45-70 lever action. Every single one of those were weapons of war. In the case of the black powder revolver literally. It’s a post-Civil War era military issue weapon. The Springfield was bought by my grandfather at a army surplus auction in the 1930’s. It was once an infantry weapon. They are far closer to the description of weapons of war than an AR 15.

[Malcador]

I think the IRA did use the AR-15, although less than the AR-18 (there's a song about it).  Whether that counts as a war, depends.

[ShadySands]

I've come around and would now be okay with banning all guns. It wouldn't be my first choice but I could live with it.

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, ShadySands said:

I've come around and would now be okay with banning all guns. It wouldn't be my first choice but I could live with it.

All guns? As in every gun ....you know thats never going to happen so why want something that is not possible ?

[Raithe]

For that edge of snark..

[xzar_monty]

On 6/2/2022 at 7:56 AM, ShadySands said:

I've come around and would now be okay with banning all guns. It wouldn't be my first choice but I could live with it.

But isn't the US already in a completely hopeless situation? Even if all guns are banned, it will mean almost nothing. Even if all guns have to be "brought back", only the "good guys" will comply. There is no way to get the guns away or back from the people that shouldn't have them. I can't see any way out of this situation for the US. For every other country in the world, perhaps, but not the US. The point of no return has been passed a long long time ago.