a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by wasoxygen
wasoxygen  ·  2709 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: FiveSplaining: Firearms (Interest Measuring)

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?





johnnyFive  ·  2709 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    · 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?

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.

    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.

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.

    · 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?

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.

    · 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?

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.

    · 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?

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.

    · What are the rules about modifying firearms, like filing serial numbers or sawing off barrels?

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.

    · 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?

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.

    · 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?

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.

    · Are people 3D printing guns that work better than slingshots yet?

I haven't kept up with this much, but apparently Defense Distributed's pistol, called the Liberator, can work.

    · 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.

Yeah, although this varies a lot by state. I personally think open carry is stupid.

    · 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.

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.

    · Isn't that a handsome car?

Yes!

wasoxygen  ·  2708 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    As for handguns, yep.

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.

    "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%

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.

    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.

That's just the kind of weird story I was hoping for. Under "Political career":

    In 1992, Yee was arrested for alleged shoplifting a bottle of tanning oil from the KTA Superstore in Kona's Keauhou Shopping Village.

Bonus points for the connection to the Hot Coffee mod.

    This second thing was the bolt release.

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.

johnnyFive  ·  2708 days ago  ·  link  ·  

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.

    Australia has a reputation for having an effective gun control policy, but The Source makes me wonder if that reputation is deserved.

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.

    I always thought he was just whacking the magazine to make sure the cartridges were lined up or something, like a pack of cigarettes.

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.

kleinbl00  ·  2708 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    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.

My cousin assembled an FN-FAL entirely off of eBay for less than $500.

johnnyFive  ·  2708 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Wait, for real? Mainly the parts kit, right?

I'm looking for a good 7.62 battle rifle.

kleinbl00  ·  2708 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Apparently it was a mostly-complete DS Arms, it was a while back, and it was closer to a grand all-in.

Roommate just finished tweaking out his Springfield M1A.

Brand new bits he's about $2k into it, not including the scope.

johnnyFive  ·  2708 days ago  ·  link  ·  

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.

kleinbl00  ·  2708 days ago  ·  link  ·  

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.

johnnyFive  ·  2708 days ago  ·  link  ·  

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.

kleinbl00  ·  2708 days ago  ·  link  ·  

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.

johnnyFive  ·  2708 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    Now 5.56 is a buck a round

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.

cgod  ·  2709 days ago  ·  link  ·  

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.

johnnyFive  ·  2708 days ago  ·  link  ·  

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.

cgod  ·  2708 days ago  ·  link  ·  

From a self-defense standpoint you are safest to not own a gun at all but gun owners don't generally like hearing that shit.

johnnyFive  ·  2707 days ago  ·  link  ·  

[citation needed]

jadedog  ·  2698 days ago  ·  link  ·  

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.

johnnyFive  ·  2698 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I linked to this study (also from Harvard) elsewhere in this thread.

    International evidence and comparisons have long been offered

    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:

    The peacefulness England used to enjoy was not the result of

    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.

    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.

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:

    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."

And

    National Institute of Justice surveys among prison inmates

    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.

jadedog  ·  2697 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    I linked to this study (also from Harvard) elsewhere in this thread.

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:

    83. This Article will not discuss the defensive use of firearms beyond making the

    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:

    The legitimate question is not whether victim gun possession allows for selfdefense

    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.

    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."

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:

    These studies are highly controversial. See Kates, supra note 29, at 70–71, for discussion

    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:

    Moreover, if the deterrent effect of gun ownership accounts for

    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.

    Of course, all other things may not be equal. Obviously,

    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?

johnnyFive  ·  2697 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    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.

jadedog  ·  2696 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    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.

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.

    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.

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.

cgod  ·  2699 days ago  ·  link  ·  

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.

johnnyFive  ·  2699 days ago  ·  link  ·  

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.

cgod  ·  2698 days ago  ·  link  ·  

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.

cgod  ·  2698 days ago  ·  link  ·  

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

    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.

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.

ecib  ·  2708 days ago  ·  link  ·  

In a contest between feeling safe and being safe, feeling safe will win every time.

kleinbl00  ·  2708 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    · 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.

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.

    · 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?

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.

    · What are the rules about modifying firearms, like filing serial numbers or sawing off barrels?

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.

    · 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 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.

    There are several scenes in "Heat" in which firearms are used inside vehicles. Permanent hearing loss, or only temporary?

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.

wasoxygen  ·  2708 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    A sawed-off shotgun is specifically called out as a Title II weapon of the National Firearms Act.

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.

    most of what you see in film is synthetic foley

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.)

kleinbl00  ·  2708 days ago  ·  link  ·  

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.

user-inactivated  ·  2708 days ago  ·  link  ·  

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.

kleinbl00  ·  2708 days ago  ·  link  ·  

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.

johnnyFive  ·  2708 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    The sound in Heat is pretty dope.

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.