Hi all,
As a guy who's both liberal and into guns, I get annoyed a lot when I see, well, liberals talk about guns. It's frustrating for people who purport to regulate a thing not know the first thing about it.
But I'm also trying to figure out just how widespread this really is. As someone who knows a fair amount about guns, it's hard for me to gauge (heh) what people do and don't know, and how much of it is overblown. I mean, TV does a rotten job of depicting how guns work; I've lost count of the number of times that I've heard a hammer cocking sound when someone is raising a Glock, or how often people with pump shotguns eject live rounds because they have to keep pumping the thing every 5 seconds. But again, that's TV, and I don't know if people really believe that's how things work or not.
So to that end, I'd like to check y'all's interest on this. Would you be interested in some kind of explainer on guns and gun-related things from someone who isn't to the right of Darth Vader? Is there anything that you've heard that seems odd, but weren't sure about? I guess I want to see if this is something people care about/are interested in before I do all that typing....
Fiscal conservative, socially liberal, gun owner, with a concealed carry permit to protect myself from other gun owners. I've hunted food. I've also shown up for brunch with friends and found four of them dead. And had a dear friend die at the hands of a thrill killer. So yeah. I know guns. More to the point of your question though, I'm not sure there is much to be added to the conversation at this point. The information is out there for anyone who wants it, and - not knowing you - I don't know what you bring to the table that is new or different or provides a fresh perspective. If you think you have value to add to the conversation, I'm fully behind you.
Since you asked... I didn't know the difference between an automatic and a revolver until recently, when some friends at work invited me to the range. Since then, I have picked up some vague notions and lore that could benefit from some expert fact-checking and expansion. · What exactly is controlled by gun control? For the popular AR-15 rifle, Wikipedia says it is a fairly small portion which is marked with a serial number and legally controlled. And when this part is incompletely manufactured, requiring a little extra machining and some over-the-counter parts to become dangerous, sales of the "unfinished receivers" or "80 percent receivers" or "blanks" or "ghost guns" are not regulated. Is this accurate, and is the situation similar for handguns? · I heard that sales cannot be recorded in any format that is "searchable," so many records are kept on paper. When police have to track down a firearm used in a crime, they make phone calls to dealers, who sort through files. If this is at all true, it is surprising that any firearms are ever tracked. · This probably varies by state, but I understand that the "gun show loophole" has nothing to do with gun shows. Licensed dealers are required to do background checks before a sale, but anyone else can sell firearms without background checks. Is it really legal for someone to sell a handgun to a total stranger for cash? What other criminal charges might apply in such cases? · Forensic matching of rifling marks on bullets seems like an unreliable approach. Are TV depictions of this practice quite exaggerated? Are there other techniques that are more often helpful in investigations? · There was a story somewhere about a requirement that magazines could not be ejected without a special tool. Some guy invented a magazine that could be ejected with a spent shell casing, and I think it went to court. Heard any other weird stories like this? · What are the rules about modifying firearms, like filing serial numbers or sawing off barrels? · Silencers. Apparently very unlike James Bond depictions, and more useful to protect the shooter's hearing than for getting away with a stealthy kill. There are several scenes in "Heat" in which firearms are used inside vehicles. Permanent hearing loss, or only temporary? · Re "Heat" "N.B. Val Kilmer's reload was so fast and smooth that this clip was used in U.S. Marine Corps training videos, to show new recruits how it should be done in combat." Citation needed? · Are people 3D printing guns that work better than slingshots yet? · I was surprised to learn how many states have open carry laws, indeed at first I was surprised to learn that it is legal anywhere to walk around carrying a firearm. Evidence on YouTube suggests that many law enforcement officers are fuzzy on this point as well. Concealed carry often requires a special license. · Beretta is one of the oldest companies in the world, with a sale to the Arsenal of Venice recorded in 1526. The iconic 92 series replaced the venerable M1911 which the U.S. armed forces had been using since 1911, and was the basis of the photo illustration in the Atlantic article. Giorgetto Giugiaro of the legendary Bertone and Ghia design studios designed the Beretta U22 Neos, a funky addition to his portfolio including the Seiko watch worn by Ripley in "Aleins," the DeLorean DMC 12, the classic Alfa Romeo 2600 Sprint, and, according to rumor, the Apple Car. (Meanwhile, Apple designer Marc Newson designed a shotgun for Beretta.) · Isn't that a handsome car?
For the popular AR-15 rifle, Wikipedia says it is a fairly small portion which is marked with a serial number and legally controlled. And when this part is incompletely manufactured, requiring a little extra machining and some over-the-counter parts to become dangerous, sales of the "unfinished receivers" or "80 percent receivers" or "blanks" or "ghost guns" are not regulated. Is this accurate, and is the situation similar for handguns? It is accurate, yes. As explained on the ATF's website, they do not consider these to be firearms, so they're not illegal. This article from Wired talks about this too, and also notes that folks have begun experimenting with 3D-printing of parts, including the lower receiver. As for handguns, yep. Basically it comes down to how federal law defines what is a gun versus what isn't, and thus which parts are regulated. As you say, only the lower receiver (in the case of an AR) is required to have a serial number and be regulated, whereas a receiver-shaped block of metal is not. Pretty much true. Basically Congress said there can't be a centralized database of firearm transactions. Some states may do it, I dunno. Dealers are required to hold onto the paperwork for like 20 years (or send it to the ATF if they close shop), but that's about it. Correct. I don't know about every state, but at least in mine you can sell a gun for cash and not incur any legal penalties. For example, here's a forum where people can sell handguns to each other (or trade them for other guns). The same site has separate fora for rifles and shotguns too. AFAIK (and the usual disclaimers about this not being legal advice apply) the only way you'd get in trouble is if you knew or reasonably should have known that the person you're selling to is not eligible to own a gun, such as due to a felony conviction or whatever. They usually are exaggerated, and not just with guns. I'm not well-versed on the subject, although there has been some snake oil out there (see for example this article about flawed hair analysis). Lawyers do worry about the so-called CSI Effect, which can affect both sides of a criminal trial. Defense lawyers worry about juries putting more faith in forensic technology than is warranted by the reliability of that tech, while prosecutors worry that people will expect magically reliable results and won't convict without it. Not off the top of my head, simply because I live in a state that doesn't do that stuff. The so-called "bullet button" part is true, and it was found to comply with California law (which is the only state AFAIK that requires it). Ironically, the state legislator who tried to have the bullet button outlawed in California is currently in federal prison for, among other things, gun running. He bought some automatic weapons and missile launchers from an Islamic extremist group in the Philippines and tried to re-sell them to someone who turned out to be an undercover FBI agent. Filing off a serial number is basically always illegal as far as I know (and here too, this isn't legal advice, etc.). Sawing off barrels is likely illegal as well; the Gun Control Act (the big federal law on gun regulations) frowns upon a shotgun with a barrel less than 18" and a rifle with a barrel of less than 16". I think it's more the length requirement than the modification per se...in other words, if I had a rifle with a 24" barrel and cut it down to 22" (for some reason), I'm not aware of that being illegal. For some reason there's a subset of folks there who are super into the idea of a "short-barreled rifle", known as an SBR. I confess I'm not really sure why. But one of the things they used to do to get around this is use an "arm brace," which goes on the back where the stock would be and has a cuff-looking thing that goes around your arm, allowing you to fire it one-handed. Of course people were instead just firing it from the shoulder, which the ATF has since decided to be a "modification" and therefore make the gun fall under the National Firearms Act, or NFA. This is the same law that governs private ownership of fully automatic weapons, as well as super-large caliber (above .50). Note that it's not actually illegal, there're just a ton of legal steps and a lot of money involved to do it. First, you're right, "silencers" (which are usually called "suppressors" by the manufacturers) reduce the noise but don't make it truly silent like in the movies. It can make a gun safe to shoot without ear protection, though, with the right ammunition. But remember too that many bullets are super-sonic, and part of the sound is actually a sonic boom. So you have to get sub-sonic ammunition for this to be at its most effective. As for hearing loss, I'd guess permanent. These OSHA standards (PDF) from the late '90s recommended less than 1 second of exposure for sounds above 130 dB. Most of the stats I've seen on firearms put them at 150 dB or above (see e.g. here and here). They're using very short-barrelled rifles in Heat (according to the Internet Movie Firearms Database, McCauley is using a Cold Model 773 which has an 11.5" barrel), which would make it worse. I've heard that story too, but I have no idea if it's true or not. This behind-the-scenes bit on the shootout mentions it, but again it's not clear if it's true. I'd believe it, though. If you've never used an AR before, what he does is hit a button on the left side of the rifle to drop the magazine. He then puts in another one. Then you see him push something on the left side of the rifle again. This second thing was the bolt release. What happens is, when the last round is fired, the bolt locks back (just like the slide locks back on a pistol when it's empty). Once the new magazine is put in there, he released the bolt which comes forward and pushes the first round into the chamber, so it's ready to go. I haven't kept up with this much, but apparently Defense Distributed's pistol, called the Liberator, can work. Yeah, although this varies a lot by state. I personally think open carry is stupid. Yeah, this is still pretty controversial. My understanding is that a lot of the reason was ammo standardization with NATO, since the Europeans were all using 9mm sidearms. Plus you get into things like ammo weight and capacity. The Marine Special Forces folks switched back to Colt 1911s for a couple of years, but have since gone to the Glock 19 (which is 9mm). For the record, my daily carry is a 1911, so I'm kind of a fanboy. Yes! · What exactly is controlled by gun control?
I heard that sales cannot be recorded in any format that is "searchable," so many records are kept on paper. When police have to track down a firearm used in a crime, they make phone calls to dealers, who sort through files. If this is at all true, it is surprising that any firearms are ever tracked.
· This probably varies by state, but I understand that the "gun show loophole" has nothing to do with gun shows. Licensed dealers are required to do background checks before a sale, but anyone else can sell firearms without background checks. Is it really legal for someone to sell a handgun to a total stranger for cash? What other criminal charges might apply in such cases?
· Forensic matching of rifling marks on bullets seems like an unreliable approach. Are TV depictions of this practice quite exaggerated? Are there other techniques that are more often helpful in investigations?
· There was a story somewhere about a requirement that magazines could not be ejected without a special tool. Some guy invented a magazine that could be ejected with a spent shell casing, and I think it went to court. Heard any other weird stories like this?
· What are the rules about modifying firearms, like filing serial numbers or sawing off barrels?
· Silencers. Apparently very unlike James Bond depictions, and more useful to protect the shooter's hearing than for getting away with a stealthy kill. There are several scenes in "Heat" in which firearms are used inside vehicles. Permanent hearing loss, or only temporary?
· Re "Heat" "N.B. Val Kilmer's reload was so fast and smooth that this clip was used in U.S. Marine Corps training videos, to show new recruits how it should be done in combat." Citation needed?
· Are people 3D printing guns that work better than slingshots yet?
· I was surprised to learn how many states have open carry laws, indeed at first I was surprised to learn that it is legal anywhere to walk around carrying a firearm. Evidence on YouTube suggests that many law enforcement officers are fuzzy on this point as well. Concealed carry often requires a special license.
· Beretta is one of the oldest companies in the world, with a sale to the Arsenal of Venice recorded in 1526. The iconic 92 series replaced the venerable M1911 which the U.S. armed forces had been using since 1911, and was the basis of the photo illustration in the Atlantic article.
· Isn't that a handsome car?
It does seem that the primary impediment to an emotionally disturbed person obtaining a firearm is emotional disturbance. I was going to wonder how other countries manage the difficulty of defining what constitutes a firearm. Australia has a reputation for having an effective gun control policy, but The Source makes me wonder if that reputation is deserved. The Wired article does point out the strangeness of the U.S. controls on the lower receiver but not the upper receiver with its rifled barrel, "a component that looks much more like a gun than the lower receiver and whose total lack of regulation is, frankly, bizarre". It also stated that "buying or selling a ghost gun is illegal, but making one remains kosher under US gun control laws" but I guess this only applies to licensed dealers. And there is, probably, no hard data on what portion of gun sales go through licensed dealers. That's just the kind of weird story I was hoping for. Under "Political career": Bonus points for the connection to the Hot Coffee mod. I always thought he was just whacking the magazine to make sure the cartridges were lined up or something, like a pack of cigarettes. Probably the gun nuts were thrilled to see anything like a realistic reload on screen. I remember howls of protest on the IMDB page for "American Sniper" or "Hurt Locker" when a soldier's rifle jammed because some blood spilled on the cartridges. "It would just lubricate them!" I'm not going to look it up because IMDB and IMFDB and IMCDB are awful time sinks which already consumed more than my lunch hour.As for handguns, yep.
"Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached."
in the decade after the NFA, non-gun homicide rates fell by 59% and gun homicides fell by the same 59%
Ironically, the state legislator who tried to have the bullet button outlawed in California is currently in federal prison for, among other things, gun running.
In 1992, Yee was arrested for alleged shoplifting a bottle of tanning oil from the KTA Superstore in Kona's Keauhou Shopping Village.
This second thing was the bolt release.
IMFDB makes me very happy. But yeah, a lot of the regulations are very vague and weird, simply because of how hot a political issue it is. I'm inclined to agree. If you look at their murder rates pre-1996 and post-, there doesn't seem to be a major change. One of the things that you have to be careful about is studies that look at whether gun homicides go down as opposed to just homicides in general. In other words, you can't say that stricter gun controls reduce homicide if people just start killing each other with something else. I'll also note this study (PDF) that discusses gun ownership rates and homicide rates in various countries. Nope. There's a famous scene from Apocalypse Now where a guy in a helicopter does this on his helmet, but I don't think it's actually necessary.Australia has a reputation for having an effective gun control policy, but The Source makes me wonder if that reputation is deserved.
I always thought he was just whacking the magazine to make sure the cartridges were lined up or something, like a pack of cigarettes.
Wait, for real? Mainly the parts kit, right? I'm looking for a good 7.62 battle rifle.
Yeah, I've considered the M1A, but they're overpriced for what you get IMO. I don't think they're necessarily accurate or reliable enough for what you get. Currently the front-runner is the PTR 91, which is a U.S.-made clone of the G3.
I've always enjoyed the handling on the SAR-48. Granted, the last time I shot one they were still being imported. Cleanest, sharpest rifle I've ever shot was actually a 30.06 Springfield.
Huh, wasn't familiar with that one. And yeah, an M1903 is on my list, but they're fairly expensive if they're in decent shape. That and .30-06 has gone through the roof.
What hasn't? I went out to Stockpile Defense with a buddy who literally bought them out of 5.56. For what we paid (there was a limit per customer; we all had to chip in) we could have bought an equal number of rounds of .50 BMG. What's been interesting to me is watching the price delta between, say, bullshit 5.56 and Weatherby. The idea of spending $4 a round to shoot at something was batshit insane back when you could get 1400 rounds of 7.62 Russian for $39. Now? Now 5.56 is a buck a round and .460 Weatherby is a mere $8.
Not online. I just picked up some remanufactured stuff for $0.31/round. Here is 1,000 rounds of Wolf Gold (their all-brass stuff) for the same price. Never had a malfunction from either. Now 5.56 is a buck a round
Different people OC in different ways. I don't get worried when I see a guy just going about his day with a gun on his hip, but I've only seen this a few times in my life. People have OC'd in Portland with rifles in hand wearing tactical gear and cammo, it's their right I suppose. I wouldn't feel bad if these guys were on a list. Other OC demonstrators have dressed nice, holstered pistol on their hip, been with their family, had an intelligible pamphlet about why they are doing what they are doing and been friendly and approachable to everyone, even their critics. I kind of like these guys. I know many liberals who own guns and a few with CC permits. I think the right has been snowed as to what liberal really think about guns. The left is far from homogenous on the issue. Parading the left's more vocal second amendment foes is a useful way to get votes and funding.
I get all that, but I think it's dumb just because it's unnecessarily provocative (and that's often the intent from what I've seen). It's also stupid from a self-defense standpoint, since someone who wants to start stuff is going to target the open-carrier first.
OK, I'll bite. I have no dog in this fight. I don't have a position on the gun debate. I'm just participating because I'm finding this line of debate annoying on both sides. It looks like this. "Inflammatory statement" Side A - Show me yours and I'll show you mine Side B - lol, I don't care enough. Insult. johnnyfive, I'm going to try to force your hand. Maybe I will learn something in this "debate". Hopefully, it might even be about the gun debate. Cite (several studies hosted on the Harvard website) Claims from that cite. Each of these claims are backed by a study. "Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal" "Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense" "Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime" "Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense" " Few criminals are shot by decent law-abiding citizens" "Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions" I'll go out on a limb and put those studies together to say that owning a gun for self-defense gives more rise to harm than defense. I'm interested to see your studies that show that gun owners who use their guns for self-defense are safer than those who do not. Edit: This was simulposted with cgod's "Part Two" response.
I linked to this study (also from Harvard) elsewhere in this thread. as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. Unfortunately, such discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative. It may be useful to begin with a few examples. There is a compound assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement (b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so. Next, they discuss rates of gun ownership and murder in various other countries. The Soviet Union (and then Russia) had virtually no civilian gun ownership, but much higher murder rates than even the United States. For example, Russia's murder rate in 2002 was 20.54 per 100,000. Luxembourg, which has virtually non-existent gun ownership, had a homicide rate of 9 per 100,000 in 2002, which was almost double the U.S.'s rate for that year. They also look within countries, and find that, for example, gun ownership rates correlate negatively with homicide rates across constabularies in England. Quoting research on the efficacy of British gun control measures: strict gun laws. When it had no firearms restrictions [nineteenth and early twentieth century] England had little violent crime, while the present extraordinarily stringent gun controls have not stopped the increase in violence or even the increase in armed violence. The authors go on to point out that many studies look at gun laws and how they prevent gun violence but not violence overall. In other words, if a study shows that gun deaths go down after more restrictive laws are put in place but not murder rates as a whole, that shouldn't be used to prove that gun laws are effective in reducing murder rates (but often are). As for the idea that self-defense uses are rare: the United States, “in fact, more defensive gun uses [by victims] than crimes committed with firearms." And find that large percentages report that their fear that a victim might be armed deterred them from confrontation crimes. “[T]he felons most frightened ‘about confronting an armed victim’ were those from states with the greatest relative number of privately owned firearms.” Conversely, robbery is highest in states that most restrict gun ownership.International evidence and comparisons have long been offered
The peacefulness England used to enjoy was not the result of
Armed crime, never a problem in England, has now become one. Handguns are banned but the Kingdom has millions of illegal firearms. Criminals have no trouble finding them and exhibit a new willingness to use them. In the decade after 1957, the use of guns in serious crime increased a hundredfold.
Recent analysis reveals “a great deal of self‐defensive use of firearms” in
National Institute of Justice surveys among prison inmates
Yes, I saw your points on the other issue in this thread. They didn't touch on this issue at that time. I looked at the 46 page pdf and did a search on the word "defensive" to see where you got your argument from. The first search find was this: following observations: while there is a great deal of controversy about the subject, it is a misleading controversy in which anti‐gun advocatesʹ deep ethical or moral objections to civilian self‐defense are presented in the guise of empirical argument. The empirical evidence unquestionably establishes that gun ownership by prospective victims not only allows them to resist criminal attack, but also deters violent criminals from attacking them in the first place. From the same note: and deters criminal violence, but how extensive and important these benefits are. That's the question posed here in this piece of the thread. The paper you linked did not directly answer the question except to pose the same question in the notes. Back to your quote. I'm interested in where this statistic came from, (it's in the footnote 87) which states that it's a collection of studies. Note 89 states: of critics and criticisms. Your quote is slightly out of context and not consistent with the notes and the broader theme of the paper. As to your point about comparing other countries' relationship between gun ownership and homicide rates, the author of the article you linked notes in summary: low violence rates in high gun ownership nations other than the United States, one wonders why that deterrent effect would be amplified there. Even with the drop in United States murder rates that Lott and Mustard attribute to the massive increase in gun carry licensing, the United States murder rate is still eight times higher than Norway’s—even though the U.S. has an almost 300% higher rate of gun ownership. That is consistent with the points made above. Murder rates are determined by socio‐economic and cultural factors. In the United States, those factors include that the number of civilian‐owned guns nearly equals the population— triple the ownership rate in even the highest European gunownership nations—and that vast numbers of guns are kept for personal defense. That is not a factor in other nations with comparatively high firearm ownership. High gun ownership may well be a factor in the recent drastic decline in American homicide. But even so, American homicide is driven by socio‐economic and cultural factors that keep it far higher than the comparable rate of homicide in most European nations. In sum, though many nations with widespread gun ownership have much lower murder rates than nations that severely restrict gun ownership, it would be simplistic to assume that at all times and in all places widespread gun ownership depresses violence by deterring many criminals into nonconfrontation crime. There is evidence that it does so in the United States, where defensive gun ownership is a substantial socio‐cultural phenomenon. But the more plausible explanation for many nations having widespread gun ownership with low violence is that these nations never had high murder and violence rates and so never had occasion to enact severe anti‐gun laws. my bolding added The author of the article you linked is clear to point out that the relationship of one country's gun policies and the link to its homicide rate may not translate to another country rates due to socio-economic factors and its cultural history. That's a point you neglected to mention. The author notes that it may be impossible to find the relationship between gun ownership and homicide rates because of the complexity of socio-economic factors and the cultural reasons for gun ownership. many factors other than guns may promote or reduce the number of murders in any given place or time or among particular groups. And it may be impossible even to identify these factors, much less to take account of them all. Thus any conclusions drawn from the kinds of evidence presented earlier in this paper must necessarily be tentative. The author then goes on to discuss the burden of proof and where it lies. The author asserts that the burden lies with those who want gun control. If there's no proof on either side, what's the reason that the burden of proof should lie on the side of the people who want gun control?I linked to this study (also from Harvard) elsewhere in this thread.
83. This Article will not discuss the defensive use of firearms beyond making the
The legitimate question is not whether victim gun possession allows for selfdefense
Recent analysis reveals “a great deal of self‐defensive use of firearms” in the United States, “in fact, more defensive gun uses [by victims] than crimes committed with firearms."
These studies are highly controversial. See Kates, supra note 29, at 70–71, for discussion
Moreover, if the deterrent effect of gun ownership accounts for
Of course, all other things may not be equal. Obviously,
Hasn't stopped you from doing so, it seems. What's the reason it should be on the other side? You've just kind of declared that it should be and left it at that.The author notes that it may be impossible to find the relationship between gun ownership and homicide rates because of the complexity of socio-economic factors and the cultural reasons for gun ownership.
what's the reason that the burden of proof should lie on the side of the people who want gun control?
That's a curious response. I don't have a stance on this issue. I was using your source to point out that your own source doesn't say what you're purporting it to say in the unequivocal way you're stating it. Fivesplaining (or ELI5) is when someone takes a really complicated issue and objectively explains it without the jargon so the average person can understand it. I've now read your OP multiple times to try to understand what you're supposedly fivesplaining. Are you just fivesplaining how a gun works? If so, it's confusing since you're mentioning politics. The functioning of a gun doesn't include politics. Are you fivesplaining the complex debate surrounding the proliferation of guns and the debate surrounding gun control? If that's the case, so far you've presented a very biased one-sided view with cherry-picked "facts" from your own sources that contradicts your own source in places, and you're using rhetorical tactics to obfuscate the issues. If someone is offering to fivesplain the very complex gun control debate, I'd be interested to learn more in a fair and balanced presentation. Based on your responses in this thread, you're not offering that. I don't have a stance on this issue. But just based on looking at the resource you cited, an argument could be made that if there are ethical and moral concerns about gun ownership from a certain segment of the population, and it can't be proven that gun ownership is beneficial to society, then the burden of proof should fall on those who want less gun regulation.The author notes that it may be impossible to find the relationship between gun ownership and homicide rates because of the complexity of socio-economic factors and the cultural reasons for gun ownership.
Hasn't stopped you from doing so, it seems.
what's the reason that the burden of proof should lie on the side of the people who want gun control?
What's the reason it should be on the other side? You've just kind of declared that it should be and left it at that.
Lol, not my problem, I really couldn't give a shit if you want to pretend your dangerous hobby isn't. If you wanted to know the consequences of owning a gun you would know it by now, no citation needed. Every gun owner I know is the Donald Trump of gun ownership until the day they aren't. Too many people in my family have got a little sad or a little mad one day and that was that. If we were a morose clan we'd have 3 empty seats each thanksgiving.
You're right, it's not. But thanks for clarifying that you're just interested in self-righteousness rather than actually talking about the issue. Will save me some time.
Hmmmm... Part two I really come off as an insufferable prick there. As if I haven't engaged in risky behaviors (mostly unprotected sex and drug use). It's absolutely fine to engage in risky behaviors and I sincerely hope most gun owners enjoy their guns. I'm an old married guy now and unprotected sex isn't' really a big issue. It's going to be no issue at all after Tuesday when I'm going to get my business snipped but I still occasionally do some heavy drugs. I enjoy them, rarely, but I also acknowledged that their use entails some degree of risk. Many gun owners say they want guns for protection but in now way acknowledge that owning guns also carries a degree of danger. I'm not against people owning guns or engaging in behavior that increases their risk, I just loath the Rambo bullshit that pretends owning a gun is safer than not owning one. Only seeing one side of the story, or engaging one sided cost benefit analysis is a fucking disease in America. For every crime that is prevented with a gun they are several avoidable tragedies. To maintain otherwise is to be full of shit.
Hmmm... In what way am I being self-righteous? I honestly don't know how. Maybe self-righteous doesn't mean what you think it does? I'm probably just a nudge left of the NRA in my opinions on gun laws but I'll stick to my guns that most gun owners aren't making any kind of accurate assessment on the dangers of gun ownership. They are like people who own pools who refuse to acknowledge that the ownership of such pools increases the likelihood of someone they intimately know drowning. Like ecib said, feeling safe and being safe are two different things. Forgive me if I'm going to blow off Hubski's resident gunsplainer for citations of information that is a google search away if he gave a shit. I don't expect a reasonable cost benefit analysis of a guy who's analysis of risk is I've known two maybe three gun owners who wouldn't have made the situation more dangerous last time I was the victim of a gun crime. They go to the range once a month, get special training one to two times a year and have a mind and skill set that has primed them to unhesitatingly shoot a man to death. Most gun owners are jerking off in gun grease imagining the day they are going to save the day but are in now real way prepared to do so. Maybe your the kind of guy who goes to the range and gets training, keeps the key to the gun safe out of harms reach, will never blow your head off during a dark night of the soul, isn't going to get spooked and blow away his wife or kid when they go bump in the night and has an even enough demeanor that he would never pull his gun out for another reason than to kill someone who presented a direct threat to his life. If so good on you. Most people think they are that guy, and enough gun owners aren't that owning a gun can be a dangerous proposition.It's also stupid from a self-defense standpoint, since someone who wants to start stuff is going to target the open-carrier first,
otherwise known as the gun owners wet dream, or an event so unlikely it's asymptotic with zero.
At 17 I purchased an SKS from a guy in a trailer. I wrote my name down on list. The list went into a box. The box went into the trailer. I think the guy asked to see my driver's license. He wrote down no information. When I asked him what happened to the box he said "if the government ever produces a court order, I'll give it to 'em after I set it on fire." When I moved to Washington I inquired with the Seattle PD if I needed to inform them of my guns. They asked why I would do something like that. wikihow has ten steps to your FFL. note that these are slightly less stringent than the steps necessary to legally draw blood. For background checks, see above. A sawed-off shotgun is specifically called out as a Title II weapon of the National Firearms Act. Title II includes shit like full-auto machine guns, hand grenades, weapons over .50 caliber (excluding barrel-loading black powder weapons) etc. The act of turning a Title I weapon into a Title II weapon (by, for example, converting a semi-automatic rifle to fully automatic or select-fire) is a federal felony. It was this very act that an undercover agent hired Randy Weaver to do while they were sitting around drinking beer. The agent did so in order to leverage Weaver into informing on the white nationalists in Sand Point. Everything went worse than expected. There are two acoustical noise sources that need to be ameliorated: the percussive expansion of exhaust gas and the sonic boom of the bullet breaking the sound barrier. A suppressor has no effect on sonic booms whatsoever. However, exhaust gas can be baffled relatively effectively, particularly if you've got the room for a decent baffle. It's possible to shoot spooky quiet if you are using subsonic ammunition. Most calibers, however, are supersonic, and most of what you see in film is synthetic foley that has never been anywhere near an actual firearm. Guns are a bitch to record up close because their soundwave is a single percussive discontinuity well above the dynamic range of any mic you would use to capture the early reflections and tails that we psychoacoustically characterize as gunfire. A legitimate silenced weapon, meanwhile, mostly sounds like a dry fire. Percussive hearing loss occurs in a whole 'nuther regime than OSHA noise exposure and is nonlinear. Will you be deaf forever from shooting in an enclosed space? No, but that ringing in your ears is the cilia within your ear canal dealing with damage. Every time you damage them fewer recover. Eventually your high frequency hearing goes away. I used to go shooting a lot, with ear protection, using my buddy's guns. His dad had been shooting for so long without hearing protection that he could no longer hear the phone ring. Those guys occupationally fired large caliber weapons within an enclosed space. Their hearing likely suffered, but not so fast that they were one and done.· I heard that sales cannot be recorded in any format that is "searchable," so many records are kept on paper. When police have to track down a firearm used in a crime, they make phone calls to dealers, who sort through files. If this is at all true, it is surprising that any firearms are ever tracked.
· This probably varies by state, but I understand that the "gun show loophole" has nothing to do with gun shows. Licensed dealers are required to do background checks before a sale, but anyone else can sell firearms without background checks. Is it really legal for someone to sell a handgun to a total stranger for cash? What other criminal charges might apply in such cases?
· What are the rules about modifying firearms, like filing serial numbers or sawing off barrels?
· Silencers. Apparently very unlike James Bond depictions, and more useful to protect the shooter's hearing than for getting away with a stealthy kill.
There are several scenes in "Heat" in which firearms are used inside vehicles. Permanent hearing loss, or only temporary?
This seems a bit strange, since it's the length of a long gun that makes it more accurate and deadly. I thought maybe the fear is that a shorter gun is more concealable, but that doesn't make a lot of sense in a world with the Desert Eagle. Shorter shotguns are popular in the military for being maneuverable in close combat, so I suppose that could work to the advantage of criminals too. Probably best not to evaluate gun law on the basis of what makes sense. Michael Mann seems proud of his sound in "Heat", and the echoes booming in the L.A. canyons along with the tinkling of shell casings was eerie somehow. At least the guns don't click and rattle like someone walking through a pile of coat hangers every time someone handles one. (I assume that's the right link, I must resist the gravitational singularity of TVTropes today.)A sawed-off shotgun is specifically called out as a Title II weapon of the National Firearms Act.
most of what you see in film is synthetic foley
Sawed-off shotguns are as illegal as machine guns because there's no sawed-off shotgun lobby to make them legal as handguns. https://www.quora.com/Why-are-sawed-off-shot-guns-illegal It could be argued that they have a wider pattern but yeah. It's not like lopping off the barrel makes them deadlier. The sound in Heat is pretty dope. It's not like all movie guns are bad, but the good ones don't really get noticed unless shit's fuckin' legendary.
Back a million years ago in the days when I hung out with, um, "interesting" people I was given the opportunity to fire a shotgun with a 12" barrel. Absolutely not legal, not at all. Here is the thing about that gun: with its home made pistol grip it fit perfectly under a coat and was not that much bigger than one of the stupidly large bore handguns that were popular a while back. Put slugs in that gun and they went through walls. It also recoiled like a mule. Fire buck shot in that gun and everything in a 90° arc in front of you got hit by something, which is good because your arm is now pointing up and I took a few seconds to get the thing back level again for the second round. My guess is that the wad pushes the pellets out in a wider cone with a shorter barrel, but it has been forever and I'd have to look up someone who has video comparing a longer barrel to a shorter one. I've owned guns, am currently around army people who live guns, and went with a few friends to this exact shoot. I'm probably in some of the video from the early evening rounds where they were just firing machine guns; we stayed for the tracer and cannon fire because I like firearms, tangentially, but these nuts? Lots of GOA stickers. For the uninitiated, the GOA, Gun Owners of America, is an off shoot of the NRA who thought that the NRA was a bit too liberal and tolerant for their tastes.
Thing is? These ain't Class II NFA weapons. Back in the '90s you could buy them mail order - if I recall they were like $20. And I guarantee their pattern is less choked than a sawed-off. There are youtube videos of patterns for 16" barrels, 12" barrels and 22" barrels and up close'n'personal they ain't that different. Here's a .410/.45ACP over/under pistol. sawed-off shotgun legality has a lot more to do with vintage caselaw than modern lethality.
It is, and at least in the case of the post-bank shootout, it's because Mann specifically refused to use the version where the sounds were replaced. It was all recorded on set.The sound in Heat is pretty dope.
I think there's at least six or seven prominent, prolific posters here that own guns, have owned guns, and know guns. My observation is that it's nearly impossible to expound your knowledge on guns because dollars to donuts you are surrounded by people who know them better than you and the vagaries of .223 vs. 5.56 probably don't even interest you, let alone the foreigners that can't quite wrap their heads around why you need an AR-15 let alone three of them. As an example, guns make silly sounds and do silly things on TV because TV ISN'T ABOUT GUNS, it's about drama, and while 99% of the audience doesn't give the first fuck what a Glock sounds like, the other 1% is going to hate your ass regardless of how fucking historically accurate you are.
This is something I would also be interested in. Personally I've never even fired a gun, and I've always thought that if you want to intelligently discuss just about anything you should have some concrete knowledge (which I don't have in this case). Also, this interests me because I've been putting research into buying a pistol to a) learn how to shoot and b) have a self-defense weapon that I can keep in my glovebox. I was looking at a Glock 19, but then again, I don't know squat.
Glocks are popular for a reason. As far as buying one, you should see if you can find a range that will rent them to you first. To my experience, different people "click" with different guns, and so if you're going to spend that much money on something, it's worth trying it out first. I'd also highly recommend taking a basic pistol course of some kind, whereby someone can walk you through basic operation and safety and maybe teach you some marksmanship too. Beyond that, it's a perishable skill, so if you do want it for self-defense, make sure you practice and practice often! One last thing: I for one wouldn't keep one in the glove box when I'm not in the car. It's just asking to get it stolen. On a related note, never put a bumper sticker on your car that suggests you're into shooting--that is a great big sign that says "break into this car."
Yup, I have found a range that offers a class/where I can practice. No such luck on finding a place that will rent though. Thanks for the advice on the car. Although, that was my primary reason to go with a pistol over something like a .22 to learn how to shoot/properly care for a weapon. Should I change my plans?
Not necessarily. Also, you'll want to see what your state's laws are about carrying one that way without a permit. I have a set-up in my car (basically an outside-the-waistband holster attached to the inside of my center console) for when I'm driving around, since a weapon on my belt is too hard to get to. But I try to avoid leaving it in the car whenever I can. Honestly, these days 9mm is easier to get than .22. Plus you have more flexibility with a decent pistol; if you decide to start carrying it one day, you won't have to buy a new gun (granted that's fun too).
I've wondered about that, although I admit I haven't looked very much. If I had the resources, I would totally start my own gun YouTube channel. I'm also left-handed, so I could focus on that type of lefty too!
Thanks for the reply. What, exactly would you like me to focus on?
This is not a simple question. It gets even worse when you start looking into bullshit like felony murder rules wherein, say, me and my buddy break in to rob your liquor cabinet, you shoot my buddy and since I'm the guy committing the felony, I get charged with murder.
I won't speak for kleinbl00, but for me my goal in starting this thread was to reach out to people like you who don't know a lot. More info is good for everyone, and I'd like the debate over gun control to come from a place of facts rather than hysterics. As an aside, I'll say that I disagree with his characterization of the felony murder rule as bullshit. Self-defense is a big legal issue, and has he says it's complicated. It's also handled at the state level rather than the federal. Some states have a duty to retreat, for example, meaning that you have to try to get away from an attacker before you use force (deadly or otherwise) to defend yourself. Others don't. Some states also grant you a presumption of self-defense if you use deadly force on someone who broke into your house. The typical standard is that you must have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury for you to be justified in using lethal (or potentially lethal) force on someone else. So someone talks shit and you shoot them, probably not self-defense. Someone comes at you with a bat, I think you probably could (since a bat can kill you), but again this will depend on the situation. It'll also depend on your locale and what juries tend to be like. I live in a place that has a history of lots of crime (we were like 1st in the country for murder back in the last '90s), so even now people tend to be very pro-self-defense. This in turn means prosecutors are less likely to prosecute someone who might make a self-defense argument, since they don't think they can get a conviction. This is anecdotal, but based on a couple prosecutors who came and spoke to one of my law school classes ~2007. The end result is that it's difficult to make blanket statements, and as in the case of Trayvon Martin, it all gets very political very quickly.
Hold my beer. Brother in law's family. Nephew hanging out with his friend. Friend tries to buy some weed. Ends up getting seeds and stems. Decides he's gonna "show that fucker" so heads over to dealer's house with a knife. Nephew hangs around. Dealer invites them both in. Friend draws knife. Dealer draws .44 magnum and shoots friend. Nephew is now facing 15 to life. He's 18. And black. Felony murder is bullshit. The United States is the ONLY country where this shit wasn't abolished a hundred or more years ago. If you think it isn't, that means you've never encountered it or you've never met a black person or both.The end result is that it's difficult to make blanket statements, and as in the case of Trayvon Martin, it all gets very political very quickly.
So, your nephew decided to help someone attempt murder? Or was the friend just trying to "scare" his dealer? I'm fully aware of the racial prejudices involved in criminal justice, but throwing out the baby with the bathwater isn't a good solution. I'll be sure to let the black people in my life know this.If you think it isn't, that means you've never encountered it or you've never met a black person or both.
Brother in law's nephew. Decided to go help his buddy scare a dealer. Dumb idea? Sure. 15-life dumb? What's the deterrent power in a law that few people understand? What's the rehabilitative effect of a life sentence for being present for the execution of somebody else? What's the community effect when a white guy can shoot a black kid and have his black friend do the time? There is no baby. it's all bathwater.
Right, sorry. He contributed to a situation that resulted in someone being killed. Felony murder requires more participation than just being a bystander. He clearly knew what was going to go down, or at least what could go down. May as well ask about the rehabilitative effect of a life sentence for actual murder. I'm not saying they're morally equivalent, but at the same time I don't see him as particularly innocent from a legal standpoint. I question the underlying assumptions about it being a thing that "few people understand." At the very least, I think "helping someone threaten someone else with a knife" is obvious enough as no-no from a moral standpoint that you don't have to know the ins and outs of criminal law to realize it's a bad idea. I mean, if his friend had ended up stabbing the dealer to death, your brother-in-law's nephew could easily have been charged as an accessory, which with murder can often carry the same sentence (depending on state law). I know this is someone you know, and it can feel kind of personal. I also know, as I said, that the criminal system doesn't necessarily treat black people the same or fairly. But in general terms, I don't think this is a situation where the law is unreasonable.Brother in law's nephew.
Depends on the circumstances. But that's also not what happened. It's a shitty situation from a personal/family perspective, I get that. That doesn't make the law wrong, though. Is your family handling it okay (for appropriate values of "okay")?Had they been standing on a street corner he wouldn't have been charged with anything.
What the fuck do you care? The questions put forth to you are as follows: These questions are put forth to you because you said this: There is no self-defense being discussed here. The kid in question didn't have a weapon. The man doing the shooting is a convicted drug dealer. The felonious act committed by the kid was being in the presence of someone with intent to intimidate. Yet for you, this is an abstract case of ignoring the question at hand because somehow, in your head, this is about self-defense and deterrence. I get that the purpose of lawyers is to exercise and carry out the law. But the purpose of law is to enforce the social contract between citizens and government. Felony murder is a bad law. Full stop. And pretending you give the first fuck about those convicted under it is disingenuous and insulting.What's the deterrent power in a law that few people understand? What's the rehabilitative effect of a life sentence for being present for the execution of somebody else? What's the community effect when a white guy can shoot a black kid and have his black friend do the time?
Self-defense is a big legal issue, and has he says it's complicated. It's also handled at the state level rather than the federal. Some states have a duty to retreat, for example, meaning that you have to try to get away from an attacker before you use force (deadly or otherwise) to defend yourself. Others don't. Some states also grant you a presumption of self-defense if you use deadly force on someone who broke into your house.
I was willing to put up with some anger on your part over the situation (to say nothing of conflating some things in my argument that I didn't link), but this was over the line. So my own full stop for you: go fuck yourself.And pretending you give the first fuck about those convicted under it is disingenuous and insulting.
The problem with "guns" is that fans of guns can hew to the mechanics of them, which is a lot like describing how drills work, or delve into "why guns" which is one of the quickest ways to incite a shitstorm where nobody's mind will be changed but everyone will offend everyone else.
I'm particularly interested in this part of the US' culture - a part that, as a foreigner, I was never able to understand. It would be undoubtebly educational to learn about it from someone who sees it from within, every day. I suppose that, with me, you'd have a lot more explaining to do if you wanna get it right. Probably motivate ya to research stuff, if anything.
The cliche is that we're an independent bunch, and generally prefer to handle problems ourselves rather than involve the legal authorities. Some of it too is that there are still a lot of people who hunt regularly, both for sport and as a necessary source of food. This has traditionally been done with guns. It wasn't that long ago that high school kids could leave guns in their cars outside if they were going hunting after the school day, although this is no longer the case in most places. Another example. One of my aunts taught high school in a very rural part of my state. She knew not to bother planning any significant lesson for the first day of dear season, because 95% of her students wouldn't be in school that day. The start of hunting season is an unofficial holiday in a lot of places. But it depends where you go. You can have someone from New York City or Boston who has no connection with guns whatsoever, but then someone out in upstate New York or New Hampshire who has hunted since he or she was a child. While I've never hunted, I grew up hearing stories from my dad and my uncle about how they used to go hunting with my grandfather all the time, starting when they were pretty young. The degree that we own guns relative to other parts of the world is also somewhat overblown; plenty of people still hunt in Canada and the UK, for example. So as further cliche, guns are just more a part of daily life here. It's far from unusual for people to learn to shoot while they're still kids, and it becomes almost a right of passage in some places. I'm going to teach my daughter to shoot when she's old enough, and she'll learn The Four Rules even younger.
It makes sense that in a society where firearms are so prevalent, you'd want to teach your children to handle them properly. An instinct inside me says that it may not be a good idea to teach a child shooting because it somehow propagates the desire to shoot or even violence, but rationally, I understand that it's much better to let the kid know what she's doing when a dangerous tool ends up in her hands. My lack of understanding - and a pinch of disagreement with the idea of gun prevalence - stem from the fact that in Russia and the former Soviet Union countries, much like the rest of the world, firearms aren't as prominent or nearly as frequently appearing. Sure, guns exist, but they're restricted to people whom you would expect to handle one: the police, the army, paramilitary and home defence services, - and young boys tend to look up to people who own the firearms with awe. In other words, it's just "not my thing"; I don't understand it because I haven't touched it (the culture of gun ownership) personally, even though I understand the feeling of power that comes with handling it (the gun). I wonder what it feels like and what people who own guns feel about the guns themselves and the culture.I'm going to teach my daughter to shoot when she's old enough, and she'll learn The Four Rules even younger.
That's basically my thinking, plus I want her to have the skills to use a gun in self-defense if she should choose to. But also, I want her to know what is and isn't safe in case a friend has parents that are irresponsible gun owners. To me, at least, it's a reflection of a sense of responsibility. Defensive gun usage happens more often than people realize, I think, and I also believe that those of us with the resources to own guns and be trained with them have a responsibility to do so.It makes sense that in a society where firearms are so prevalent, you'd want to teach your children to handle them properly.
I wonder what it feels like and what people who own guns feel about the guns themselves and the culture.
But doesn't it happen because of guns so present in the society (rather than by necessity)? And, on the flipside, doesn't offensive gun usage happen disproportionately more in the US for the same reason?Defensive gun usage happens more often than people realize
Sort of, but this gets to be a little chicken-and-egg. The main problem though is that assumes that the absence of guns would in turn mean lower murder rates (and there's evidence that this isn't so. In addition, we've seen in this country all too well what happens when you try to ban something that a lot of people want. All we'd do is end up with a black market for guns. Brazil is another good example, with much greater restrictions on ownership than in the U.S., but their murder rate is far higher.
Brazil also has astonishingly high rates of corruption, and six percent of its population lives in slums squarred which have their own special police units because they're so much worse than a typical US ghetto. Suffice it to say that I, a Russian, am saying that Brazil has problems with their national mentality. If I had to guess, the murder rate is so high not because of gun restrictions and the ensuing black market spree - it's because of how poor living there is that people have to resort to manslaughter, particularly in gang and drug wars. The problem, I think, is not that people want guns: they don't want to have them gotten rid of by an external force - the government, in this case - without considering whether it may actually be a good idea. I'm sure black markets will exist - it's not like they don't now - but they're a crime whether or not gun ownership is restricted in any degree. Maybe fewer people will commit suicide if they don't have immediate access to firearms, though: though I can't provide any studies (which is poor etiquette for me, but I hope you'll forgive the transgression this time: it's been a tough evening), it seems evident from what I've read so far that lacking immediate solution to how to commit suicide dissuades people from going for it. Maybe there will be fewer accidental shootings and even accidental murders by people who were just messing around with a tool they didn't realize the danger of. You may argue that education will improve situations like the latter, and you may even be correct. It doesn't seem realistic to rely on people's good will at such a scale, but perhaps things can be done; then the question becomes whether you're willing to accept whatever accidents there are left, especially if someone you care about might become a victim. You may argue something about suicide prevention, as well. What can't be escaped is the fact that gun ownership is innate to the culture of the US, and trying to just take it from people will, indeed, result in something worse than one might naively expect. One might even argue for holding onto a long-term decision to wedge guns away from the culture because it may work, unlike giving up after seeing no results afters months of restriction, though that will not be me. I'm just trying to critically assess your views in hope of understand what the hell is it with the guns in your country.Brazil is another good example, with much greater restrictions on ownership than in the U.S., but their murder rate is far higher.
I'm not saying it is, but it's an example of a situation where stronger gun laws haven't helped. If you have a chance, check out the study I linked in my previous post. It has data to suggest the exact opposite of your conclusions.If I had to guess, the murder rate is so high not because of gun restrictions and the ensuing black market spree