California Senator Dianne Feinstein has introduced into the U.S. Congress proposed legislation that would ban military-style assault weapons. The weapons proposed for banning are semiautomatics, those having large magazines and that fire one round each time you pull the trigger, automatically ejecting the spent cartridge and loading the next into the chamber. You don’t have to reload until many bullets have been fired. Here’s one of them, the An Intratec TEC-DC9 with a 32-round magazine. It’s legal:
What possible civilian use can such a weapon have? Certainly not for hunting, and if you want to protect yourself or an intruder, there are handguns and rifles with smaller stores of ammo or bolt action reloading.
Sadly, the Republicans in Congress (under pressure from the National Rifle association) oppose this, and it is unlikely to pass. Other pending legislation requiring background checks of gun purchasers, including those at gun shows, has also been stalled because of Republican opposition. These two initiatives are part of President Obama’s push to tighten up gun laws and make it harder to conduct mass killings like those at Newtown. That too, will amost certainly fail. As the Los Angeles Times reports:
Although negotiations continued, no progress on background checks appeared evident in the Senate, where a bipartisan group struggled over how to broaden them. The major sticking point: whether private citizens who sell guns directly to others should be required, like licensed dealers, to keep records of the sale.
Gun rights backers warn those records could be used to create a national registry of gun owners, which they oppose.
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), one of the key negotiators, said this week that any provision that required gun owners to keep records would “kill this bill.” Instead, he said, legislation should give sellers “the right and the responsibility to do the right thing” and run a background check.
Gun control advocates say that without a paper trail, it’s impossible to know whether background checks have been performed, opening a loophole for criminals to buy guns.
And without a paper trail it’s hard to trace back weapons used in assaults.
Here’s a summary of Feinstein’s Assault Weapons ban of 2013 from her website:
The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:
- All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.
- All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
- All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
- All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
- All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
- 157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this page).
The legislation excludes the following weapons from the bill:
- Any weapon that is lawfully possessed at the date of the bill’s enactment;
- Any firearm manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action;
- Assault weapons used by military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement; and
- Antique weapons.
The legislation protects hunting and sporting firearms:
The bill excludes 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by specific make and model.
My question is this: why is there any reason for civilians to own such weapons? They’re not for hunting, and, as I noted, you can protect yourself without huge-magazine semiautomatic weapons. They have only one use: to kill large numbers of people.
How is the possession of such weapons justified? I know that the “background-check” legislation is opposed because of the ridiculous idea that it would put America on a slippery slope, at the bottom of which is complete prohibition of all guns for civilians (something that I favor, by the way). But that argument is ridiculous: you can ban alcohol for those over 18 without that leading to a total ban on alcohol.
But are assault weapons defended with the same “slipperly slope” argument? (I doubt that, because we already have a ban on fully automatic weapons, and that hasn’t led to complete prohibition of guns.) Or is there some argument I don’t know that even a stupid Republican can offer in defense of these weapons?
The Republican Party is not only the party of the rich, but the party of mass killings. It favors a dysfunctional America, and I wouldn’t be upset if every Republican in Congress lost their seat.
Look, we can all agree on some commonsense gun control standards, but no more rocket launchers? That goes a wee bit too far for my tastes, thank you very much.
Sorry, is that “no more rocket launchers”, or “no more controls on rocket launchers”? In this topic more than most, ambiguity abounds.
Guns and rocket launchers have material differences.
The difference between ‘assault weapons’ and ‘sporting weapons’ is mostly cosmetic.
If someone wants to argue for a ban, that’s a consistent position.
Feinstein’s position is not. The features banned aren’t materially relevant. Feinstein even seems to recognize this.
If the classification were well-founded, it’d be unconscionable to “[exclude] 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by specific make and model”
The AWB isn’t a rocket-launcher ban. It’s a ban on cars with racing stripes.
Speaking as a Brit.
From listening to the apparently lunatic rantings of some members of the NRA, that they will not be told by the Government that they cannot have whatever means to defend themselves.
My impression is that Government is the enemy of these people, probably regardless of which flavour of Government happens to be in at the time, and as the Government controls the army and police forces, that the NRA must therefore have these [semi-]automatic weapons.
The reason being, if the Government decides to forcibly take them away, using the police and/or army, then they may well need the automatic, bug magazines that they love so much, as there will be lots of targets all at the same time!
Of course, what would I know?
Good luck America. I personally think you are fuc^H^H^H up that famous creek without a canoe, never mind a paddle.
Cheers,
Norm.
Sigh! For “bug magazines” read “big magazines”. Apologies for my inability to spell correctly.
Cheers,
Norm.
Sadly, this is not just a caricature. And to add irony, the people who want the most police and the biggest military and legal torture and indefinite detentions and all of that, basically the ones who want the government to be the most badass, are frighteningly often (not always of course) the same people who feel the need to own a modern arsenal to fight off government tyranny. Or maybe it’s not irony, maybe it’s the logical conclusion. If you create a monster, of course you’ll be a little nervous about that and may want to prepare for it to go south…
That might be the case if it weren’t the people who oppose things like torture and indefinite detention that they seem most afraid of coming to get them.
“My question is this: why is there any reason for civilians to own such weapons?”
Why is there any reason for civilians to own fireworks? Why is there any reason for civilians to own trampolines? Why is there any reason for civilians to own swords?
Answer: they’re fun. The fact that they’re also dangerous is not in itself a reason why a responsible citizen shouldn’t be allowed to have fun with them. Background checks, yes. Preventing law-abiding citizens from pursuing happiness in the manner that they see fit, no.
Should we allow people to own nuclear bombs as well then, so as to not prevent their lols?
Clearly there are some limits to what citizens should be allowed to own. But the same reasoning which allows a person to own a car despite the danger that it poses to other people would also allow a person to own an assault weapon, especially since the number of deaths by caused by assault weapons is much lower than the number of deaths caused by car accidents. My point is that “it’s fun” is just as good a reason as “it helps me travel faster”: both contribute to the overall happiness of the person.
I agree with your post for the most part, except who has the natural right to set the limit? That’s almost like stating rules of war. :-/ Rules always help the bad guy win because they don’t follow rules.
I’m not sure owning weapons is necessarily about fun either. 🙂
As for the OP:
“The Republican Party is not only the party of the rich, but the party of mass killings. ”
Bull. This is nonsense.
There are many wealthy Democrats and Republicans. Both murder. Both are against murder.
There are non-Republicans that have been doing some mass killings lately. That cop in LA was not a Republican by any stretch of the imagination.
This is one of my favorite blogs though because of the good information it generally contains.
People kill people. Always have. Probably always will, regardless of political position, race, ethnicity, yada, yada.
The Swiss murder; the Norwegians murder; the South Africans murder… Gun laws or not.
We have gun laws and laws against murder… and Americans _still_ murder. Amazing. News at 11.
As long as we don’t let them smoke pot. Because that would be dangerous.
Yes, it would.
Should we allow people to own nuclear bombs as well then, so as to not prevent their lols?
No, we shouldn’t. They’re too dangerous. But the point is that “Why is there any reason for people to own X?” is the wrong question. In a society based on the values of liberal democracy, by default people should be allowed to own whatever they want. They should only be prohibited from doing so if there is sufficient reason. The burden is on those who would ban ownership to justify the ban, not the other way around.
None of this is to say that banning ownership of certain kinds of firearm is not justified. But a case has to be made for such a ban.
Agreed. Any time you ask “what reason have you to do X?”, you are creating a guilty-until-proven-innocent construction where people have to have “reasons” to do something. The problem here is that “to have fun” is a legitimate reason. But it doesn’t sound like one, and this is a problematic paradigm.
“Answer: they’re fun”. That’s hardly a good reason. One can get a kick from driving at 200km/h without a seatbelt. Why should the state prevent someone from pursuing happiness that way? Individual pursuit of fun is not a good reason to ignore the safety and health of society at large.
On a more personal level, considering guns as fun is something I find disturbing. If shooting at targets is one’s thing, why not try darts? Unless it is the sick kick one gets from handling a potentially deadly powerful weapon. And yes, I am familiar with guns (army and all that), but would never own one myself.
You can drive at 200 km/h on your own property, just not out in public where you could harm other people. Similarly, you shouldn’t be allowed to carry an assault weapon in public, but if you want to shoot it on your own property that’s fine.
I’ll raise the issue again: does the gun need to be lethal in order to have fun with it on your private property?
“Answer: they’re fun.”
Does their lethality contribute to the fun factor? If not, then can we develop a far less dangerous version of this weapon – one that makes the bang bang fun sounds but is good only for target shooting and not killing?
Lethality (lethalness? …uh, Danger?) adds a bit of adrenaline to the whole experience. People react to things that go “bang”, wishing for more in many cases. Go to Switzerland on August 1st, their fabricated holiday generated to allow fireworks all day long. I was in Martingy, and the smoke from gunpowder was thick downtown, amongst all the many booths selling fireworks, and my biggest worry was the constant barrage of firecrackers thrown behind people…I didn’t want one to go off after landing in my clothing. BTW, a large rocket sold otc could set you back well over $100…bit much for ten seconds of fun.
That night, a fireworks crew from China set off a two-hour barrage of explosions from the castle overlooking the town. I had an epiphany: No wonder military commanders want war. They wish to feel the concussions reverberate through their chest.
I’ve had thoughts that a festival called as the “Celebration of Detonation” would get a lot of love and attendance.
“Lethality (lethalness? …uh, Danger?)”
Uh, lethality is the noun form of lethal, consult a dictionary if you are confused.
le·thal (lthl)
adj.
1. Capable of causing death.
2. Of, relating to, or causing death. See Synonyms at fatal.
3. Extremely harmful; devastating:
Lethality (n)
If there are people out there who cannot enjoy a firearm at all unless it is also capable of causing death to large groups of people, then I’m sorry, but their desires do not trump the safety concerns of the rest of us.
The “but I wants to have fun” pro assault weapon argument is almost as feeble as the “we needs them to protect us from da guberment” argument.
“Go to Switzerland on August 1st, their fabricated holiday generated to allow fireworks all day long”
Not quite on topic, but I can’t fail to notice a certain negative vibe in your comment (full disclosure, I am Swiss). Not sure what you mean by “fabricated”. If you mean that the holiday was officially created within the context of 19th century nationalism and invention of national traditions as pretty much everywhere else in Europe, I agree. However I find the term “fabricated” rather misleading. The holiday after all does commemorate a specific historical event, the August 1291 pact, one of a series of similar alliances which are indeed foundational for the history of the country. One might as well call the French Bastille day “fabricated”, since its creation as a holiday dates to the later 19th c.
As for fireworks in Martigny, in my experience holidays in Italy, the US, and Mexico (just to name the countries I know best) have a similar degree of fireworks-related revelry. Hope you liked the raclette at least. Next time I suggest the Combats des Reines, the cow fights, which are quite interesting to watch and do not involve explosions.
Sounds like good clean fun to me. Let the government take away sources of recreation like that and the next thing you know they will be coming after my ebola virus collection.
Machine guns are fun and, as it happens, you ARE actually allowed to own a machine gun, you just have to jump through extra hoops. Why should the gun that JC shows, or any gun, be any different?
I have a good friend who is an avid rocketry buff. He builds BIG rockets they have to shoot off in the desert. He has to jump through quite a few hoops to get the highly explosive materials he needs. He has special lockers to store the materials, special licenses, and so on. It’s a pain to jump through those hoops, of course, but also entirely reasonable given the havoc such materials can cause the general public. And in the end, he does get them, his hobby continues past these speed bumps and he probably launches a dozen car-bomb sized rockets a year. He isn’t a baby about it, he just takes responsibility for his hobby, something the gun lobby apparently considers beyond the pale.
For that matter, you can’t drive a car anonymously either. Every state has a licensing procedure for driving mainly because cars are so horribly dangerous. Maybe we should start there, since gun hobbyists are so fond of the untrammeled right that car owners have to kill and maim, and require ALL gun owners to have a gun license that they keep up to date and which can be revoked in ways similar to auto licenses.
The model rocketry comparison is an excellent one. A friend of mine was the head of the state Tripoli chapter (high powered rocketry association) and the Tripoli members felt very strongly that the potentially dangerous stuff they used in their hobby needed to be carefully controlled. They were very happy to comply with FCC flight rules and rules about ordering and shipping hazardous materials. They even have their own certification programs to make sure people know what they are doing. Similarly, I would think that gun enthusiasts would be in the lead for pushing for controls and safety. But they are exactly the opposite.
I guess they call them gun nuts for a reason.
The NRA used to be the lead in crafting gun regulations, but that has changed [1]. I won’t pretend to understand all the reasons for this change, but the net result is that the organization now comes across as slightly sociopathic.
It’s odd in a way that I find myself even participating in these debates because to a large degree I don’t care. While gun deaths are shamefully high in the U.S., it’s still small enough of a risk that I never give it a thought in my own daily life. It wouldn’t even occur to me to engage in this debate except that I keep finding myself responding not so much to the threat of guns, per se, but to the threat of the sociopathic Mad Max world view that the gun lobby now promotes. I find their ideology far more disturbing, and wrong, than their weapons. I don’t care if people own guns, even machine guns, rocket launchers, and so on. Just do so as a part of society.
[1] http://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/the_nra_once_supported_gun_control/
Yes, I definitely think that requiring gun owners to have a license makes sense. Many states already do this.
You do realize that there are many restrictions on owning and using fireworks, right?
As you say, why would anyone need these types of weapon? It’s a bit like demanding the right to own your own ICBM, what on earth would you use it for?
Well, if North Korea hits YOUR house with one of their wayward rockets, no one might care! Imagine! Your house destroyed, and everyone else is just saying, “Too bad!” but little else!
Now, with your own ICBM, satisfaction is a short countdown away!
True. And on top of that, there’s always the neighbors.
But only if you launched first. I think it’s called a ‘pre-emptive strike’?
I live in Switzerland, and we just had another mass shooting just yesterday, with four deaths and six wounded. This kind of thing is overall usually a rather rare event in Switzerland, but it is the second one this year already (another one at the beginning of January caused three deaths and two wounded). In both cases no semiautomatic or similar high-power weapons were involved, yesterday’s shooter apparently used a handgun and last month’s shooter used a hunting rifle and an antique gun. Obviously, just banning semi-automatic weapons is not enough. Sure, this sort of event will always happen sooner or later, but without guns at all there is no way someone could inflict such damage. The equation is very simple, fewer or no weapons=fewer deaths.
Agree, while banning weapons of this type would clearly be a positive move the vast majority of gun deaths in the US – somewhere around 80% – are caused by handguns. The idea that these are to be used for self defense really doesn’t hold water. Any responsible gun owner, especially one with children/grandchildren would have to keep the weapon locked away preferably with ammo locked away in a different location. Makes arming yourself in double quick time problematic. Owning a gun is the single biggest risk factor for having a member of your family killed or injured by gunfire btw. My position is pretty much in line with Jerry – I personally would hold out for the right to own guns genuinely used for hunting, but with much greater restrictions on purchase.
While that is not surprising at all, it tells us virtually nothing about actual risk. The percentage of families, or guns, that suffer death or injury by their own gun is miniscule.
You would have to hold out long enough to overturn the 2nd Amendment, then. It guarantees individuals the Constitutional right to own guns for other purposes.
Umm. . . you need to read Garry Wills’s NYRB piece on the Second Amendment. Wills, an expert on the Constitution, argues convincingly that the Second Amendment does not guarantee private ownership of guns for anything other than a militia, and can’t be use to justify gun ownership as it is construed today.
Wills has made that argument, and it’s a worthy argument, but I’m not so sure how convincing it is.
A careful reading of the Second Amendment confirms that in the Heller decision the US Supreme Court was correct in its interpretation of the amendment’s syntax as written. The language of the amendment refers to a pre-existing right, a right that the amendment pledges to protect. That is, the amendment does not establish the right; the right exists. The reference to “a well-regulated militia” merely points to the framers’ view of what then constituted the salient reason to preserve the right. The right to keep and bear arms, however, was not contingent on the need to maintain a militia. The reference to militias is simply a primary *justification,* not a condition. In other words, the people’s right to bear arms is expressly acknowledged in the latter portion of the amendment itself, and the amendment explicitly recognizes that existing right. That, alas, is what we have to contend with today–it’s a curse inadvertently imposed on us by the framers. They could never have anticipated the weapons technology we’re dealing with today, of course–but we’re stuck with the framers’ language.
The Second Amendment must really be considered in light of the Third Amendment, that no troops will be quartered in private homes. Taken together, one sees the effort to prevent any US government from overtly controlling the populace. Thinking about it, it may well have to do with the Cromwell episode in England, which was a “king-less” episode of government that the Constitutionalists surely considered. Worries about dictatorship. But the worries about quartering troops have long passed. Together the Second and Third Amendments should be declared null as the circumstances that generated their construction are not around any more.
Actually, the second amendment says nothing about protecting the use of guns for hunting. I suspect hunting gets mentioned a lot because many (most?) long guns are owned and used for that purpose. The only purpose for which the 2nd amendment guarantees possession of weapons is as a participant in a well regulated militia. (The term “bear arms” means to be a soldier or participant in the military, not to hold a gun in your hands.) There is no constitutional guarantee of the possession of weapons for personal self defense. I know the Supreme Court has recently narrowly held otherwise, but frankly that ruling flies in the face of the text, and overturns established judicial precedent. I should add that just because something is not protected by the Constitution doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea, and the use of weapons for hunting and personal self defense seems perfectly reasonable to me, but the weapons used and other details are subject to regulation by elected officials.
This sounds like a solid interpretation of the Second Amendment to me. And oddly enough it is almost a Scalia-esque originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment. So why doesn’t Scalia see it this way?
What are you doing for the rest of your life? I’d like to see if we can get you on the US Supreme Court.
As Gregory says, “the use of weapons for hunting and personal self defense seems perfectly reasonable to me, but the weapons used and other details are subject to regulation by elected officials.” And Scalia does see it this way, too. Writing for the majority in Heller, he explicitly recognizes the rights of certain jurisdictions to circumscribe Second Amendment rights as may be deemed reasonable, just as other basic rights (speech, the press) are circumscribed. That’s probably the only viable avenue left for those of us who seek greater regulation and control of firearms. First, we really must require those who buy and sell at gun shows to abide by the same rules as those who buy and sell in federally licensed stores. As it is now, anyone may sell a handgun privately in a face-to-face exchange without any kind of check at all and without incurring any liability.
Former Justice John Paul Stevens said last fall, quoted in the New York Times: “Even as generously construed in Heller, the Second Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations prohibiting the ownership or use of the sorts of automatic weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado, and Arizona in recent years. The failure of Congress to take any action to minimize the risk of similar tragedies in the future cannot be blamed on the Court’s decision in Heller.”
There is no constitutional guarantee of the possession of weapons for personal self defense. I know the Supreme Court has recently narrowly held otherwise, but frankly that ruling flies in the face of the text
Many of the country’s leading liberal constitutional scholars, as well as most or all of the conservative ones, plus the Supreme Court, disagree with your analysis. Anyone can have an opinion, of course, but I think the opinions of recognized legal experts should carry more weight than those of amateurs.
Agreed – anyone can have an opinion, but the opinion of the Supreme Court is the law.
And make no mistake about it – they have ruled that individual Americans, not militias, have a protected right to own and use firearms.
I wasn’t holding out much hope for that endpoint – to rephrase, I suppose I should say I would see it as a reasonable position.
Owning a gun is the single biggest risk factor for having a member of your family killed or injured by gunfire btw.
There are two basic problems with this argument:
1. “Risk factor” here just means a correlation. It doesn’t imply that owning a gun increases your risk of gun injury. One obvious possible reason for the correlation is that people living in areas or circumstances where they are at increased risk of being the victim of gun violence are more likely to own a gun for self-defense. Owning a gun may reduce their chances of death or injury.
2. The statistics on which this claim is based are aggregates for large populations and cannot meaningfully be applied to individual cases. Owning a gun may well increase the risk of gun violence if, for example, the owner is a young man with a history of abusive behavior who lives with his girlfriend and her young child, and keeps the gun loaded in an unlocked nightstand in his bedroom. Conversely, owning a gun may well reduce the risk of gun violence if the owner is a responsible citizen with no history of abuse who keeps his gun unloaded in a locked safe and follows standard safety procedures. A gun owner like Sam Harris, for example.
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full
The people doing these studies aren’t complete idiots. They have considered issues like the ones you addressed.
The quality of the studies could be better, though. It is a bit hard to get good data because as soon as studies started coming out showing how dangerous guns really were, the NRA got all federal funding banned for research on the dangers of guns. I think the ban was removed a few weeks ago.
The people doing these studies aren’t complete idiots. They have considered issues like the ones you addressed.
I’m sure none of them are idiots. That doesn’t mean their studies do not suffer from flaws and limitations that prevent a confident cause-and-effect attribution between firearms possession and risk of injury or death. Indeed, the study you cite describes many of these problems. You say that researchers have “considered issues like the ones you addressed.” Well, yes, they often do consider those issues. But I’m not aware of any study that has solved them. The authors of the study you cite acknowledge that their own research does not show the direction of the causation:
I recently overheard comments on a local talk radio station concerning gun ownership in Switzerland. It was stated that there were no requirements for purchasing a firearm in that country and that deaths from shootings had escalated in recent years – specifically suicides and spousal/family homicides.
Is there any truth to the this?
No requirements: false.
Escalation: sort of. Depending on historical perspective.
Certainly the level of gun violence is higher than expected in countries of comparable OECD ranking, USA excepted.
Directly correlated with the high prevalence of gun ownership, especially military weapons.
Having been randomly shot at, once, threatened at gunpoint, twice (not the kind of risk immediately associated with the postcard image of Switzerland), by mentally deranged people who would never have obtained any gun permit under sensible regulations, I can testify that the easy availability of firearms poses a threat, even in this most placid of countries.
For regulations and data, consult:
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland
For a succint but sounder-than-usual journalistic view, see:
http://www.businessinsider.com/switzerlands-gun-laws-are-a-red-herring-2012-12
For one of the first comprehensive studies of risk factors and incidence of homicides and suicides in “peaceful Switzerland”, so-called, see this recent study (Open Acess):
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0053714
I don’t agree with some of the methods and conclusions, but it’s a starting point.
My understanding, based on some recent reading, is that in Switzerland they tightly control ammunition. So while every adult male (with some exceptions) is required to have military training and to own and keep in operating condition a military rifle at home for national defense, the ammunition that has been provided is one box that is sealed, and apparently breaking that seal without authorization is a violation of some kind. I’ve also read that more recently most or all of this ammunition has been recalled, so that the vast majority have rifles but no ammo. Presumably the government thinks that it’s easier in response to an emergency to quickly distribute loads of ammo than to distribute all the weapons needed to fire it.
I don’t know how true this is and I can’t recall my source, but I read this recently in an article discussing why Switzerland is not the American Gun Owner’s paradise that is often implied by right-wing NRA types.
Until 2007, conscripts would keep their so-called “pocket ammunition” at home:
– 50 rounds, 5.56 x 45mm NATO, for the current SIG 550 assault rifle;
– 48 rounds, 9 x 19mm Parabellum, for the current side-arm (SIG P220 pistol);
– 24 rounds, GP11 (7.5 x 55mm Swiss), for the old assault rifle Stgw 57.
Since 2009 (it took three years to recall most of the ammo), only members of select active-duty security units are allowed to keep their ammo at home. But, as you see from the description, ammunition for the current weapons (.223 Remington, 9mm Para) is common, alas, and commonly available. It would be a crime to use civilian ammunition in an ordnance weapon, but that would hardly deter a madman or a criminal.
The largest mass killing in US history was done with a fertilizer bomb.
To claim that eliminating guns would eliminate violence is nonsensical.
To claim that gun control advocates are claiming that eliminating guns would eliminate violence is even more nonsensical.
Along with the silly slippery slope arguments so frequently employed by the right comes the absurdly simple minded “If it’s not a total solution it’s not worth doing” argument. Perhaps there’s a better name for that in the catalogue of common fallacies. Neither of these are persuasive.
It’s called the Nirvana fallacy: any solution that offers less than a perfect solution the the problem is rejected for being imperfect.
Though in my case, I was pointing out a straw man fallacy that included a Nirvana fallacy as part of its straw man.
Agree. Humans can be a violent species and are able to find some amazing ways to destroy each other when one way isn’t accessible.
Where there’s a will, there’s a way… for good and bad.
Semiautomatic guns come in many styles including any of the colt pistols. The reason the TEC-DC9 is popular is because it holds a large magazine and it easily converts to fully automatic. It appears the easily convertible guns are the primary target of the legislation. Is there a reason to own an assault weapon? I can’t think of one. “Because they’re fun” doesn’t cut it as an excuse. I can’t build a nuclear reactor in my basement just because it’s fun.
And what’s the harm in a little paperwork. Heck, the last time I bought muriatic acid I had to show my ID and sign a ledger.
Yes, but its weird that they don’t explicitely come out and talk about convertability. They probably should, because that might bring some sense to the list. Right now it reads like a dog’s breakfast. My first thought about the specific ban was that they were banning guns based on appearance, which even as someone who supports bans makes absolutely no ratinoal sense to me. If they had said “these guns are easily convertible to full automatic,” that would make a lot more sense.
I also think that from a stategic, bill-passing perspective, they should really limit the list to highest priority concerns. Big magazine capacity? Absolutely a concern. Rifled barrel or folding stock? No so much. If i didn’t know better, I’d have thought those things were added as poison pill amendments by GOPers to kill the bill, because that sort of overbroad, go-after-everything listing is going to do exactly that (kill the bill).
Last comment, I think we should not miss Simon Hayward’s point @5: this legislation might help prevent mass shootings, but given that 80% of gun deaths are due to regular handguns with few/none of these features, the legislation isn’t really addressing the main problem.
I agree that this is not addressing the real issue of gun violence. This legislation reminds me of the revamped TSA and our terrorism alert levels. It gives appearance of doing something while not addressing the real issue, for fear of offending someone.
I would like to know what the *real* issue of gun violence is, myself. I think it has something to do with drugs and gangs, but there isn’t enough good data to be able talk about the issue beyond vague generalities.
I don’t think automatic guns are really of a danger here. In fact, considering how hard they are to control, a semiautomatic would probably be more dangerous.
??? Excepting revolvers, every modern pistol sold is semi-auto. That’s been the standard mechanism since the late 1800s/early 1900s.
If you’re saying: more people are killed by them (semi-automatics), then you’re right. Because there’s a load more of them around. But if you’re saying: an individual semi-automatic is more of a threat than an individual automatic weapon, I think that’s patently untrue.
“The reason the TEC-DC9 is popular is because it holds a large magazine and it easily converts to fully automatic.”
A) I guess you don’t keep current on firearms development. That unreliable piece of garbage (and its variants)was popular with some gang-bangers during the mid to late 1980’s, but that was only because it looked cool.
B) No semi-auto weapon “easily” converts to full-auto. This is a myth. It was EASIER to convert the earlier closed bolt variants to FA than some other firearms, but it still is not an easy (or safe) conversion.
I own semi-auto rifles with standard 30 round magazines for home defense because they offer the best possible outcome for me and my family in the event of a home invasion. “If you find yourself in a fair fight, then your tactics suck.” I’m a former civilian use of force instructor, military marksmanship instructor, former security contractor overseas, etc. and I can think of no good reason to ban certain classes of firearms simply because some people are afraid of them and/or because they do not understand them. I do not understand all of the specifics of evolution, but that does not in any way invalidate Professor Coyne’s expertise, now does it? I defer to his expertise in this area. Since I’m anonymous, I cannot expect the same (or any)deference, but really folks…so many in this thread have a simplistic and cartoonish view of firearms and the application of firearms. It’s rather disheartening for the average person like me, especially as this is (mostly) coming from a group of rational thinkers and scientists.
sorry…”closed bolts” should read “OPEN bolts”…
“No semi-auto weapon “easily” converts to full-auto. This is a myth”
I remember reading that a TEC-DC9 (or possibly something similar like a MAC-10) could be converted to fully automatic by disessembling it and removing a piece. The process was not supposed to require any machining and could be reversed such that it could later be inspected by law enforcement without revealing that illegal modification had occurred. Is this correct?
Perhaps the original open bolt Intratec-9, but not the Mac-10, to my knowledge, but i won’t bet the farm on that. Still, it requires dis-assembly and reassembly and unless you’ve done it yourself, you cant’ really say that it’s an “easy” conversion. Mechanically simple? Sure, I’ll grant you that.
Yeah, I never said “easy” because it’s too subjective. That’s why I used unambiguously clear terms. And I would tend to a agree with a ban on guns that could be converted to fully auto and back without leaving evidence of what was done. As someone already stated, the question of why a legislature can’t say something that clear if that’s what they intended is the real mystery.
Someone should design and sell a rifle with a wooden stock and traditional rifle grip that can be disassembled and converted to fully auto be removing a piece. Maybe that would teach lawmakers to base gun laws on things that matter and not aesthetic and ergonomic features they think correlate with what matters.
“Is there a reason to own an assault weapon? I can’t think of one.”
Therefore, there isn’t one?
“It appears the easily convertible guns are the primary target of the legislation. ”
You obviously fail to understand the subject of what is the ‘primary’ target of the proposal. Which is odd since it states as much as that.
“Because they’re fun” doesn’t cut it as an excuse.”
Lawful conduct doesn’t require an excuse; don’t confuse an explanation for a request for absolution of some wrong.
“I can’t build a nuclear reactor in my basement just because it’s fun.”
It can be done. I believe there was a TED talk some while back about a boy, 14 at the time, who built a nuclear fusion reactor in his garage.
Good post.
Hardly. If it’s the one I’m thinking of, he scraped together enough Americium out of old smoke detectors to _almost_ get enough (a small quantity) for a chain reaction, and enough to render his mother’s house extremely ‘dirty’. Bit of a massive fail, really.
I think Justicar was talking about somebody WAY more serious… actually trying to get enough fusion started to be able to measure the neutron emissions. Not the boy-tinkerer who merely managed to make a bunch of dirty garbage.
Oops sorry, you’re right, Justicar did say ‘fusion’ not ‘fission’.
It sounds far more alarming at first sight, since the (fusion) H-bomb is so much more powerful than the (fission) A-bomb, but the point about there being no radioactive material required does help to reduce the scary quotient, I guess. It is, however, likely to be way more difficult technically.
While it comes up occasionally in testimony and articles, it needs to be given prominence in our discussion of why people want weapons with military features: There is a substantial group of otherwise law-abiding citizens who truly believe that our government could “go bad” and that they will somehow “take back the country”, despite the overwhelming power of our military to put down a rebellion. Add to this “reasoning” a feeling of helplessness from multiple causes such as losing a job, inadequate pay if working, rising status of women, and media and organizations that offer a “solution”, and you have a narcotic brew for the suffering male. What would Freud have said on this subject?!
Perhaps more prominence should be given to examining the lower death rates as a result of firearm usage in countries like Japan, the U.K. and Australia….
The interpretation of your “2nd Amendment” rights to gun ownership and the lack of stricter enforcement of ownership requirements have all played a role in the thousands of deaths every year.
I totally agree!
And Mexico; they’ve had great success.
I think you need to ask what the Founding Fathers would have said on the subject. They had experienced a government gone bad. I would argue that that is why there is a Second Amendment. The Constitution authorizes an army separately, so this is not a question of national defense. The Second Amendment is clearly intended to provide for self-defense against government (or in the absence of government).
Mike Lee brings up the question of lower death rates from guns in countries like the UK and Japan. That is, of course, true, but the question here is whether we should be restricting non-criminals in providing for their self-defense. UK and Japan are examples on one side (although I don’t think either country enjoys the same liberties as the US, aside from the gun question). On the other side are countries like Syria, Tibet, Nazi Germany, and Soviet Russia. Our government is free. Colonists in America thought that about their government, too, until a relatively short time before our rebellion, one of the key triggers for which was the attempt to seize weapons at Concord and Lexington. Things can change; sometimes its a matter of a few years.
I post here against my better judgement because, although I don’t want to be that guy here, where I find myself so often in agreement, I get very discouraged when I see people, who would tolerate no limit on the First Amendment, begin to dice up the Second like Christians picking and choosing which Old Testament prohibitions should be observed. The Second Amendment is a fundamental right. We recognize that free speech has its down sides. The Second Amendment enjoys the same status within our Constitution. The Founding Fathers, men experienced in war and rebellion, and more thoughtful and experienced than any politician I can think of who is currently alive (or has been for some time), along with the rest of the country, agreed that it had a place alongside free speech, the right to assemble peacefully, to petition government, to be free of government interence in religion, to be free from arbitrary arrest, search, and seizure, and all those other limits on government which make our consitution unique.
Yes, many people have a reflexive attitude towards gun ownership, and are ready to see tyranny behind every government act. But there are also people who think that a gun, in and of itself, is a Bad thing, and no private citizen should be allowed to have one. That to me is not a sensible position, either. Our government is free, and I hope stays that way. We must not blind ourselves to the fact that there are many people who would change that. Plenty of people would like to see our butts in church every Sunday, and are very particular about which church, too (like King George — go look up the Test Act). Sheriff Joe Arpaio? Thankfully, I don’t live anywhere near his jurisdiction, but if I did, I would own a gun.
Nor does all virtue lay with the Left. We live in a free country, but let’s not kid each other than everything is sweetness and light, and that there aren’t plenty of people with a yen to tell the other guy exactly how to live his life. (You may say that that’s ok as long as that’s how you want to live anyway, but then you aren’t really in favor of freedom.)
I deplore murder and grieve accidental deaths in which guns were involved. But the question is a fundamental Constitional one, not to be decided by a mere majory. As Franklin said, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Personally, I don’t own a gun, and have no plans to do so. I don’t own a printing press either, and my printer’s paper cartridge only holds about fifty sheets of paper at a time. I could do either, though, as a constitutional right.
What is most annoying about this debate is that gun-control advocacy is so much political posturing. At the end of the day, nothing substantial will change without a Constitutional amendment. That is unlikely, and most of the people floating schemes for gun control know that. To be seen to be doing something, even futile, though, is often enough to win support at the poll.
Bravo Zulu!!!
Did the founding fathers really experience a government gone bad? Seriously? The British government was not even close to being the tyrannical government that is suggested by many Americans. In fact, the rebels complained about taxes, taxes which were the lowest of any other British colony. I imagine they complained about other things too, but America has, and always will, owe a great debt to the British even if they refuse to acknowledge it. If America would have waited, like Canada, the British would have handed it over without any bloodshed.
Even as a kid in history class I found myself wondering at what tax rate would I feel moved to pick up a rifle and start shooting people over it.
Some traditions die hard. I think many Americans won’t stop bitching about their personal taxes until they are exactly 0%.
I think the question is, did they feel it was a government gone bad? Apparently they did. At the same time the split was about more than taxes. Read the list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence.
I have yet to hear how any of these items makes a firearm more lethal:
pistol grip;
forward grip;
folding, telescoping, or detachable stock;
grenade launcher or rocket launcher;
barrel shroud;
threaded barrel
None of those adds to the lethality of a firearm. It makes them look scarier but does not change it functionally in anyway. To suggest that it does is complete ignorance.
The only condition that *might* make a firearm more lethal is magazine size. Allowing more than 10 rounds could make it more lethal than one limited to less than 10. However, even then it’s not difficult to quickly changes magazines and continue firing, it only takes a little practice.
I’m just glad that the ban on alcohol for those under 21 has eliminated underage drinking.
A grenade launcher doesnt make a rifle more lethal?
Forward grip is seen as useful for certain types of shooting, hence the trend for military units to start using them. Now they might just be being trendy or it might be because they think it makes them more effective and hence lethal.
Stock types: easier to conceal until use.
Threaded barrel: mainly intended for suppressors, think the uses of those are fairly obvious in increasing lethalness.
I just going to say this about the grenade launcher. The others, except the shroud, make a weapon more accurate and thus potentially more lethal. The shroud keeps the handler from burning themselves after shooting a lot of ammunition. I’m sorry, Dan, but you don’t seem to know that much about guns despite your claims. You also use the good ol’ excuses of we shouldn’t even try if a law is not *perfect* and that is simply sad.
Grenades are already illegal for civilians to own. Having the launcher doesn’t change anything and no mass killing in the US has ever used one.
You don’t hold a gun by the shroud, and a foregrip doesn’t make the gun more lethal. The Newtown, Virginia Tech, et.al shooters were not going for accuracy.
Threaded barrels with suppressors have legitimate uses for varmit control and shooting without disturbing neighbors.
Collapsible stocks do not help with concealment. An AR-15 is already 33 inches long and a 3 inch collapsible stock doesn’t make that much difference. If anything, longer barrels should be outlawed since it results in higher bullet velocity and greater accuracy.
Then having the launcher is simple stupid and virtual masturbation. However, I know that grenades are quite available if you really really want them. Anything is. Removing the launcher from civilian hands keeps them from getting stupid ideas.
And no, you don’t hold a gun by the shroud. Te shroud is to protect the body from the burning hot barrel of a gun, which generally only gets that way when many bullets are fire. If you carry it, and it slaps against you, it protects you. Just like I already said.
Oh dear, no one said that anyone was going for accuracy in the shootings at Newtown, etc. That doesn’t mean that the other things don’t make guns more lethal since they can improve shots that might not have been lethal to begin with. Remember sniper incidents?
And hysterical that you are ever so concerned with not “disturbing” neighbors”. Sorry, been there done that, and no one is disturbed in those location that you can just haul off and shoot a groundhog. In towns, there are often already laws forbidding the discharge of a weapon, supressed or not. And it ain’t Hollywood, they aren’t *that* much quieter.
I do love your denial of reality, Dan. Yes, collapsible stocks do help with concealment. It makes the weapon smaller. It might not make the AR 15 that much smaller but some do, like here: http://www.lawtactical.com/product_p/2012201.htm Now, just google “collapsible stock conceal” and see how many hits you get. I’m used to having to disprove creationist lies and nonsense. Not so much gun nonsense but the same principles still apply.
So, “if anything is available if you really, really want them”, then you are admitting that a criminal is not going to obey the laws already on the book.
You also admitted that a shroud does not change the lethality of a gun.
Suppressors are significantly quieter. I was in a defensive pistol class with an individual who had one on his Glock 19 and with the suppressor on it made hearing protection unnecessary.
Please explain how any of these proposed regulations would have stopped Newtown, or Columbine, or Virginia Tech, or…
Also, explain how people keep getting murdered in Chicago, New York, or DC with their strict gun laws?
No, I am not. Nice try though, but I’m used to opponents with no basis in reality doing their best to try to lie about what they wish I would say. I am saying that people can get things if they really want them. I am not saying that anyone can do this easily or in the throws of hate. If having guns restricted (not banned) keeps someone who wants to kill delayed enough to be found and dealt with, it is a benefit.
And dear, I have already said that a shroud doesn’t change the lethality of a gun. Repeating another attempt at a lie doesn’t work either.
One person who decided he didn’t need hearing protection at a firing range is no evidence that suppresors are “significantly quieter”. It just shows you and he are not very concerned with your hearing.
You ask how these regulation proposed would have stopped Newtown, etc. In Newtown, there woudl have been questions about a woman allowing her son who was shown to be mentally unstable to have guns; the idea of registration and questions about mental health As for the large magazines and auto-fire, she would not have been able to have them and he would not have been able to shoot people with them. If we had registration requirments, these people or their friends couldnt’ get the guns and would certainly think twice about given the guns to someone else whom they could not control. Same with Virginia Tech, same with Aurora, same with Columbine, etc. Now, that I have shown how the laws could have helped, will you apologize for youself? I hope so but I doubt it.
Again, we see you cannot abandon the “if it isn’t perfect then we shouldn’t have it” nonsense. Can you tell me what the murder rate would be without gun laws in those towns? The main problem with your question is that you assume that there is only one kind of gun control and that the cities have the only way to do it. Rather than banning guns outright (which despite your histrionics, the Obama proposal does not do), there can be registration, limits on what guns you can have, etc. There is no silver bullet, pun intended, but there are ways to lower gun violence.
pistol grip; This makes the weapon easier to handle. This could be construed as contributing to the weapon’s lethality, but is more of an ergonomic consideration for someone who must carry and use the weapon for a long period of time.
forward grip;
IF properly employed, it assists in keeping the muzzle down for faster follow-up shots. The vertical ones pretty much suck, the Magpul AFG’s are much more ergonomic and effective. Contributes to the lethality of the weapon, but again…only if used correctly. Many regular troops don’t even know how to correctly employ a forward grip of any sort.
folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; For ease of transport in confined spaces. Does not make a firearm more lethal.
grenade launcher or rocket launcher; Semi-auto military style sporting rifles do not have grenade launchers. Silly…just silly.
barrel shroud; Serves the same purpose as a regular handguard on a standard hunting rifle. Believe it or not, even hunting rifle barrels can get very hot after firing only a few rounds. No, a shroud does not increase lethality. Ridiculous.
threaded barrel:
Necessary for affixing for most suppressors, and all flash hiders and muzzle brakes. Suppressors have a bad rap because of film and television. They are, in fact, quite common in Europe for use in hunting. They decrease sound…they don’t actually silence anything. Only the muzzle brake contributes to the lethality of the weapon in that it allows for faster follow-up shots. I have them on all of my long guns.
So much more depends on who is running the weapon as opposed to how it’s tricked out. Folks need to rely less on television and movies for their info.
Suppressors might be commonplace in Europe for hunting, but they’re illegal for hunting in the US. There’s no need to have them or the means to mount them on a gun in the US.
And who are YOU to make this determination? What arrogance!
I’m in the process of acquiring one for my home defense carbine. Why? I’d rather not increase the trauma of a break-in by damaging my hearing or that of the rest of my family. It’s a valid and reasonable application of a useful device. What are you people so afraid of?
You, and the rest of the uncivilized testosterone-poisoned gun nuts who would rather see babies slaughtered in their classrooms than do without their phallic substitutes.
b&
If you have to fire your extremely loud handgun inside your home to defend yourself from intrudes so often that you put yourself at risk of permanent hearing loss, you’re living in the wrong neighborhood to begin with.
Of course, you could use a smaller or otherwise less noisy gun for home defense in the first place, or even resort to something else, like a taser or a baseball bat, or to simply invest in upgrading your home’s resistance to attempts to break in with heavy duty doors and windows, home security systems, and the like.
Really, if you’re willing to get into a gunfight to protect your home, why worry about a little tinnitus? Heck, most suppressors don’t lower the sound produced by more than 10-20 decibels, which means that the gunshot is still going to be loud enough to put you at risk.
And besides that, they’re already completely illegal in a number of states.
Actually, I suspect that the loss of energy in the round that follows on passing through a silencer / flash suppressor may reduce the lethalness of the weapon. OTOH, it is likely to reduce the lethalness of indulging in a bout of mass murder for the gunman, as you’d have a better chance of getting away without being caught.
whether you consider that a good thing or a bad thing depends on your planned use for the gun.
Well my understanding of these features is that they are designed to make the firearm a better assault weapon. Certainly, a grenade launcher would seem useful to kill or maim 50 people in one go, from some distance, thus making it harder for the potential victims to defend themselves efficiently.
Dan, we all know passing a law or a ban doesn’t end the act we are trying to prevent but without the law we have no recourse to punish those who have clearly violated our social mores and standards. Locking my house or car doesn’t stop everyone from breaking in and robbing me but anything I can do to make it more difficult to do so is worthwhile. We made murder, rape, and incest illegal, but they still happen, but by your logic (and I use that word loosely) we should not make any crime illegal if it doesn’t stop the crime completely.
Conversely, how many laws should we pass in an attempt to eliminate the use of firearms in the commission of a crime and what is an acceptable level of murders until we stop passing laws? Do we just keep passing laws until some effectiveness threshold is met?
Features 1, 2, 3, and 6 make the weapon more accurate. Feature 4 obviously makes it more lethal. Feauture 5 isn’t directly related to lethality, you’re right. Indirectly, I suppose one could make the argument that when there is less chance of the user burning themselves on a hot barrel, they can shoot more people with that one gun (which is probably why the military uses them), but its a bit of a reach to say that a barrel shroud increases the weapon’s lethality in any significant sense.
“I’m just glad that the ban on alcohol for those under 21 has eliminated underage drinking.”
As quiscalus pointed out above, you pass a law to reduce the occurrence of something bad even though you don’t expect to completely eliminate it.
Conversely, by your own logic, what is the point of having a firearm for self defense? Police officers in the US carry weapons, yet there have been multiple incidents of officers being killed recently – just another in California yesterday.
Exactly. Since a police officer is incapable of protecting himself with a gun it obviously proves that no one should have a gun for self-defense.
In every shooting in which a police officer is unable to defend him/herself with a firearm, there is still someone in that shooting who was: the person who killed the officer.
There is a reason that SWAT teams, Special Forces, and other like groups use weapons that tend to have these features. For example, the first three tend to make a weapon more compact and thus easier to move with in confined spaces, and easier to engage with close targets. It’s these reasons that, for example, most SWAT teams or other police and military units that engage in urban settings use weapons with all these features rather than standard AR-15s or other long-barrelled, fixed stock weapons.
“What possible civilian use can such a weapon have?”
Yeah, well, I’ve put up fake owls and the pigeons have started to arm themselves.
Guns don’t kill people; bullets kill people.
Weapons bans don’t impress me very much. But make it as hard to buy cartridge brass (whether or not there’s a bullet in the cartridge) as it’s already hard to buy a machine gun and then we’ll finally do something about gun violence.
Let people buy as many muzzle loaders and flintlocks and what-not as they like. They’re perfectly suited to sport shooting and bringing home dinner. And if you can’t defend your home from the thief by using your brace of double-barreled pistols, you’re not going to defend your home from the thief with any firearm.
Cheers,
b&
Guns don’t kill people. Bullets don’t kill people. Massive tissue damage and blood loss kill people.
Logically, citizens in public spaces ought to be compelled by law to wear protective gear (= bullet-proof vests and helmets), and heavily fined if they don’t.
Or shot.
More like: if you can’t defend your home by using only the means some ignorant-about-personal-security person on the internet insists are the appropriate tools, then you don’t deserve to live if someone breaks in and wants to take you out.
For whatever reason, I cannot reply to your personal attack on me in another comment.
You didn’t make an argument for dismantling the 2nd Amendment, you merely painted ALL gun owners with a broad brush and attacked me personally. I’ve been a quiet observer on this site for quite some time and found many of your comments to be helpful and insightful. What one comment can do to my opinion of a person, however. Wow.
If this is the best you can do then that’s rather pathetic. And you’re an educated man? Really? One unsubstantiated personal attack after another and you tell ME to grow up?
But that’s exactly the point.
The Second was designed to protect the security of the people from tyrannical governments, but it has no more utility for such purposes. Any last vestiges of any hypothetical utility died when Dr. King demonstrated that unarmed peaceful protestors are far more powerful than any gun-totin’ horde ever possibly could be when it comes to defeating tyranny.
Which leaves us with the reality today where we face a far greater real and present threat from irresponsible gun owners than we do from tyrannical government.
Citizens from all walks of life participate in all sorts of dangerous activities without significantly endangering innocent bystanders. In many of those cases, that’s the result of very strict government regulation. You’re perfectly free to fly giant model rockets, to pilot an aircraft, to build huge bonfires in the middle of the desert. You just have to jump through all the same hoops that responsible professionals do when they do similar things in their day jobs.
That isn’t even remotely the case with guns. And, as a result, our babies are being slaughtered.
When bystanders are harmed in model rocketry, the hobbyists are the first to lead the charge for better safety.
But time after time after fucking time, every day of the year, people die from being shot by somebody wielding a gun, and the collective response of gun owners everywhere is, “Not our problem! And don’t you dare do anything to stem the tide of blood!”
That goes way past irresponsibility and far off the deep end of sociopathic insanity.
And that’s why those of us who aren’t gun nuts have had enough, and, yes, it’s time for us to take away your guns.
If you have any hopes of being considered civilized, you’ll give up your guns before we take them away from you.
b&
The Second was designed to protect the security of the people from tyrannical governments, but it has no more utility for such purposes. Any last vestiges of any hypothetical utility died when Dr. King demonstrated that unarmed peaceful protestors are far more powerful than any gun-totin’ horde ever possibly could be when it comes to defeating tyranny.
Ludicrous. So “unarmed peaceful protestors” would have defeated Germany and Japan in WWII, would they? Peaceful protest worked for the civil rights movement only because it took place in a democracy that respected the movement’s basic rights of free assembly and free speech, and in which a large share of the majority white population was sympathetic to their cause. Peaceful protest didn’t end slavery. The Civil War did. Peaceful protest wouldn’t have saved the Jews in 1940s Germany, or the victims of the Khmer Rouge in 1970s Cambodia, or the Tutsis in 1990s Rwanda. You don’t seem to understand what the word “tyranny” actually means.
Oh, the ironing.
Had the German and Japanese people peacefully marched upon their own capitols in the same number that they instead marched off to kill their neighbors, yes, absolutely, of course — they would have stopped WWII cold in its tracks.
Your examples, every one of them, are not of tyrants repressing their own people, but of a people drunk with its own blood lust.
And if you’re seriously trying to claim that America was a tyranny before 1865, then you’re so insanely far off the deep end there’s even less hope for you than I would have hypothetically held out the theoretical possibility of existing.
b&
Had the German and Japanese people peacefully marched upon their own capitols in the same number that they instead marched off to kill their neighbors
But they didn’t. And the slaveholders in 19th century America didn’t peacefully march against slavery. And Hutus in Rwanda didn’t peacefully march against the genocide of the Tutsis. And the Iraqis didn’t peacefully march against Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. That’s why violence and war are sometimes necessary. The idea that tyranny can always be resolved through peaceful means is so stupendously naive, so obviously contradicted by history, including some very recent history, that it just boggles the mind that you expect your claim to be taken seriously.
Gary, do try to stay on topic, won’t you?
This has fuck-all to do with war, and everything to do with civilians in peacetime privately owning the tools of war for every purpose except defending against a foreign invasion.
Your Rambo fantasies notwithstanding, your guns aren’t going to do you any good against the Muslim UN horde in their black helicopters.
All your guns are doing are killing our babies — that argument above you so thoughtlessly and heartlessly dismissed as irrelevant — and, like it or not, the people are not going to put up with the senseless slaughter any more.
Hell, even something like 80% of your fellow NRA gun nuts think we need more gun regulation, including a universal background check, and that we need stricter enforcement of existing gun laws.
This ship has sailed, and all you’re doing is swimming under it, headed straight for the screw.
b&
Ben, if what you’re worried about is infant mortality, then you should be three times more worried about swimming pools and bathtubs than you are about firearms.
223 children 0-14 per year die of all causes of firearms homicide http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf
704 drown http://www.poseidon-tech.com/us/statistics.html and CDC as above.
Are you worried about swimming pools and bathtubs?
“And if you can’t defend your home from the thief by using your brace of double-barreled pistols, you’re not going to defend your home from the thief with any firearm.”
Sorry, but this isn’t just demonstrably untrue on its face. It’s also inconsistent to claim that large magazines are more efficient for killing numerous victims, but have no advantage in resisting home invasion. “[T]he thief”? Do a little research on the term “flocking.”
If you are going to use a gun in self defense, it is advised to fire three rounds in quick succession at an assailant. Under pressure, you may need more. If someone were to break into your home, it is entirely likely there would be more than one of them – around my parts, I would guess minimum two or three, for the simple reason that someone would have to be driving.
Your basic, non-assault, self-defense handgun is more than likely to be semi-automatic and hold 12-16 rounds in a standard magazine, for these reasons. I am quite sure these are the guns used in the majority of shootings in America. Assault weapons are expensive, the ammunition for them is expensive, and they are very hard to conceal. Please remember, tragic mass-shootings are a tiny minority of actual gun deaths or crime.
The first step surely is registration. Just like your car at the DMV, all guns should be registered to a name and an address, and registration should be renewed annually. At this time, you should have to demonstrate both that the gun with all registered accessories is still in your possession, in working order, and that you are still physically and mentally capable of owning and using it responsibly. All costs for such a program should be borne by gun owners, through licensing fees.
exactly, registration will do a lot for responsiblity.
Which is presumably why it is so vehemently opposed.
It has struck me that a fair number of people who want automatics are also those who are wannabee military types, but who never actually served, taking on that responsiblity (like my husband, father and brother). It is my hypotheses that responsiblity is not terribly important to this type of person.
Automatics? do you have any idea of how expensive it is to own an automatic firearm? We’re talking well over $15,000 for an entry level .223 assault rifle after the cost of the weapon, transfer fees and taxes. Not many folks have Class 3 licenses. If you are referring to late 19th-early 20th Century semi-auto technology that has all the anti-gunners upset, then please use the term semi-auto instead of auto. There’s a world of difference mechanically and practically speaking.
there is nothing in my post that say that people don’t spend money on rather silly things. I’ve enough redneck relatives who spend thousands on weapons and stereo equipment while their children go wanting.
“If you are going to use a gun in self defense, it is advised to fire three rounds in quick succession at an assailant.”
Not necessarily. Rules of engagement for home invasions, robberies, etc. are different than your typical combat scenario. It’s advised to aim for center of mass for a disabling CNS shot and to keep firing until the threat ceases to be a threat. It could be one round, it could be thirty. If an attacker ceases his attack after one round is discharged and is still alive, yet you continue to fire until he is dead, that makes you a homicide suspect in the eyes of the law. Use only the force necessary to stop the attack and no more. Keeps you out of prison and allows you to live with a clear conscience. Taking a human life, hell ANY life is a serious matter.
“Under pressure, you may need more.”
LOL, I can’t think of a time when I was under attack that I wasn’t under pressure. 🙂
I sometimes find guns things of beauty and want them because of that (oh for a nicely carved coach gun). However, I do not need one. I have a pair of rifles as an inheritance and they are stored at my parents home in locked cases where I can use them entertaining myself with shooting paint cans. No one “needs” a automatic weapon, not unless you are on a battlefield. Someone might like the feeling of power and fantasy, like many get from driving uselessly large trucks, but they don’t “need” that either. If people want the thrill of shooting automatics and bigger weapons, let some few get licenses and have specified ranges where people shoot and where the guns are secure.
In this case, the true needs of the many, to be safe, outweigh the wants of the few, those who think they are so special that they need extra-killy weaponry. That’s just paranoia and self-grandeurization. In my opinion, if you can’t save your country with a rifle, you’re doing something wrong.
According to the NRA and Matt Damon’s mommy, it’s not guns that are the problem, it’s video games and toys. I guess they don’t have video games and toys in, say, England. We in Kansas City have already had 18 murders in these first two months, which around the same number of murders London had all of last year. Clearly it has nothing to do with our gun culture, or easy access to guns.
Right, real guns don’t kill people, virtual and toy guns kill people.
Yes, all that time playing Doom as a teenager has taught me how to use a heavy machine gun with maximum skill and efficiency.
First, I scroll the mouse until the screen is filled with monsters, then I hold down on the left mouse button while the auto-aim feature insures that I succeed in killing all of them.
Last November, the citizens of my great state of Louisiana voted overwhelmingly in favor of a gun amendment that will make it much easier to eventually pass laws banning school and university campus gun-free “safe zones.” The incentives to speed up my PhD keep piling up. Access to assault rifles + shitty background check laws + ban on safe zones = terrifying.
It’s great to see all those libertarians in favour of the freedom of organizations to set rules for their own property…
“ban on safe zones”
All of which work on the honor system, right? They work perfectly right up until someone with a weapon decides to ignore the nicely painted sign out front.
There are reasons mass murders don’t happen in police departments. It isn’t because there’s a sign out front saying “this is a safe space”. It’s because there’s a contingent of people inside willing to neutralize the danger… and have the tools available to do just that.
Oh yes, just what you need to defend against psychos armed to the teeth… a whole lot more psychos armed to the teeth. Makes perfect sense.
So…since you see the police as “psychos armed to the teeth,” and apparently disfavor them, what is YOUR plan “to defend against psychos armed to the teeth”?
In fact, doesn’t your statement negate the whole theory behind having police OR a military?
Or perhaps you misspoke, and think that “psychos armed to the teeth” magically excludes police, and includes civilians. This is the “only ones” argument that one hears so commonly from shallow thinkers: “the police and the military are the ‘only ones’ who should have those kinds of weapons.”
Which ignores the facts: CC-permit holders (which is essentially what you would have with the background checks that many recommend) have a far lower rate of misuse of guns, including gun crimes, than do police.
So…precisely who ARE these “psychos” to whom you refer?
I was referring to the people who might be carrying weapons in the formerly gun-free ‘safe zones’ of the original post, actually.
Some argue that these weapons are necessary to fight for liberty in case the US government ever devolves into a tyranny. Of course, if you’re up against the full might of the US military I’m not sure it makes a big difference whether you have pistol or an assault rifle. I guess you’d be dead in 40 seconds, as opposed to 30.
So, yeah, let’s legalize these weapons knowing full well they’ll lead to the death of many because in a hypothetical scenario with an imaginary tyranny you’d get 10 extra seconds before being inevitably killed. That makes perfect sense.
There may be more than a few deluded folks who believe they are going to stand up to the power and might of the United States military on their own, but the majority of 2nd Amendment backers do not think that way at all.
Shoulder fired/hand held firearms would merely be a means for large organized groups to slowly but surely acquire more lethal weapons. Surely you’ve watched the developments in Syria over the last two years? They started out with rocks and Molotov cocktails. Look at them now.
“Shoulder fired/hand held firearms would merely be a means for large organized groups to slowly but surely acquire more lethal weapons.”
Again, we’re letting real people die over an imaginary tyranny. If there were a chance of the US becoming a dictatorship soon then maybe we could talk, but this possibility only currently exist in the minds of the paranoid.
Anyway, many of the successful resistances in history have been nonviolent, including some of the recent ones in the Middle East. So, in addition to the many dangers of allowing organized groups to possess such lethal weapons, it would probably not even be the most effective way to fight this imaginary tyranny.
You may feel comfortable with the idea of a (mostly) white right-wing Christian theocracy in charge, but as an atheist ethnic minority with an Arabic last name, no thanks…I’ll keep my weapons and ammo. Better to have and not need than to need and not have. I don’t trust these folks to do the right thing by me and nobody will deny me the ability to defend myself against these maniacs, even if it is only in a defensive mode of escape, disengagement and retreat. I find it ironic that the same folks who are opposed to firearms ownership are also the ones who don’t hesitate to (rightly) point out the extreme potential dangers posed by the right-wing nut-jobs. I may be pro-choice for self-defense, but I’m also a progressive liberal. Too bad it’s so difficult for so many to wrap their minds around the idea of a lefty who might believe in a pro-choice stance on guns.
“as an atheist ethnic minority with an Arabic last name”
I’m an atheist ethnic minority as well. Not Arabic, but have been mistaken for one even by Arabs. A lunatic with a firearm seems like a more realistic threat to me than a tyrannical takeover.
“I’ll keep my weapons and ammo.”
If it’s not an assault weapon, you passed a background check and are a responsible owner then fine.
I’m not for a complete ban of firearms. I’d like, however, for there to be strict background checks, for owners to demonstrate that they store their weapons safely and for assault weapons to be out of the hands of civilians.
Better to have and not need than to need and not have.
Actually, it’s to have, not need and end up with many more people being killed as a result. This has much wider implications than just your personal feeling of safety (and it’s pretty much just a feeling).
Just a feeling? I’ve personally prevented a burglary attempt on my home with a so-called “assault rifle”, happily without firing a shot. Just because you WANT my opinions to be based on feelings doesn’t mean I’m pulling this stuff out of thin air.
By the way…an assault rifle is a select fire weapon capable of firing in both semi-auto and full-auto. The weapons on the so-called AWB list are ALL semi-auto firearms using late 19th to mid 20th century technology.
“They started out with rocks and Molotov cocktails. Look at them now.”
Then surely we could start out with rocks and Molotov cocktails also, eh?
“If there were a chance of the US becoming a dictatorship soon then maybe we could talk, but this possibility only currently exist in the minds of the paranoid. ”
Then label me as a paranoid,friend.
Was the US a dictatorship when over 110,000 Japanese Americans were put into camps? The notion that bad things never can happen here is just incredibly naive.
I have lost two job opportunities because of my ethnicity and have been beaten, threatened, etc. All of these things occurred in a country that is supposedly open, democratic and non-discriminatory. I can only imagine what it would be like if all of the inbreds finally get their way.
Was the US a dictatorship when over 110,000 Japanese Americans were put into camps?
Arming them would have stopped this? I can only imagine things going worse.
“The notion that bad things never can happen here is just incredibly naive.”
Bad things can happen here. Bad things will happen here. What I object to is the bad thing being a tyrannical government that can only be stopped by some guy in Kansas with a TEC-DC9.
I have lost two job opportunities because of my ethnicity and have been beaten, threatened, etc.
I’m sorry you went through that.
Oh, come on…did I say that some guy in Kansas with a piece of garbage TEC-9 would stop a tyrannical government? I think in that respect, you and I are on the same page.
Regardless, I have a right to defend myself in a way that I see as being adequate, and frankly medieval to early 19th century technology doesn’t cut it, my friend. All I’m asking for is (literally) a fighting chance using mid-20th Century equipment! If you choose not not own these types of firearms that is your choice, but let me choose to defend myself as I see fit.
The problem is, you and your fellow gun nuts are “protecting” yourselves against the rest of us by ensuring that you and the lunatics have the means to kill the rest of us.
The rest of us are attempting to take the only civilized response there is: disarming all y’all so you stop killing us with your toys.
We wouldn’t be having this discussion if gun owners were responsible. But you’re not.
Sorry.
Maybe you yourself as an individual gun owner are responsible, but far too many gun owners are criminally irresponsible, and they’ve spoiled it for the rest of you.
No, it’s not fair. But tough shit. Grow up.
Oh — and, yes. It’s true. Real men don’t have a man card. In fact, real men don’t have lead-spraying phallic substitutes at all. Real men build the future. They don’t blow shit up just because it makes them feel manly.
Cheers,
b&
Again, this isn’t just about you. How about the thousands of people who die every year from firearms? Their right to live is infringed upon because firearms are so freely available in the US.
Presumably then the alternative if the government (it needn’t be the federal one) devolves into tyranny is to just throw one’s hands up and do nothing.
Don’t be silly.
You do exactly what the previous generation here in America did to end the tyranny of Jim Crow. You join hands and march down to the Capitol. And, yes, you let the tyrants beat you and spray you with high-pressure fire hoses and sic dogs on you and shoot you. And when your grandmother next to you falls, you carry her forward in your arms until you fall yourself.
All y’all gun nuts have this perverse Rambo fantasy that you’ll be the lone hero who assassinates the next American Hitler and thus restore Freedom.
But that’s not where freedom comes from.
Freedom comes from refusing to be a slave. Nothing more, nothing less.
Better to die on your feet a free man than to live on your knees as a slave, and all that.
b&
You do exactly what the previous generation here in America did to end the tyranny of Jim Crow. You join hands and march down to the Capitol.
If the government has devolved into a tyranny that’s imprisoning and killing its opponents, it seems rather unlikely that it’s going to allow them to hold a March on Washington with banners and signs and speeches petitioning for a redress of grievances.
You don’t get it. Knowing you, I doubt you ever will.
What you do is you march.
Yes, the government may imprison, torture, or kill you when you march.
But you still march.
Only cowards fight with bombs and bullets.
It takes true courage to face soldiers with nothing but your bare heart.
And it is only that type of courage which will ever truly defeat tyranny.
b&
“Only cowards fight with bombs and bullets.”
Between your continuous comments about mechanical cocks (obsessed with sex much?)and this statement I can state with certainty that your opinions are colored by solely emotion and have absolutely no basis in reality or life experience. Keep writing, the more you spout the deeper the hole you dig for yourself. Maybe you can call me some more names?
I’ll be here waiting for you to come and take my guns, Big Bad Ben Goren. 🙂
“cheers”
typo:
“…I can state with certainty that your opinions are colored by solely emotion…”
should read:
“…I can state with certainty that your opinions are colored solely by emotion…”
Damned straight this is an emotional subject.
Most people do, you know. Feel strong emotions when dozens of babies get gunned down in school, and then there’s the all-too-predictable loud chorus of sociopaths who insist we do nothing about it so they can continue to play out their juvenile fantasies with live ammunition.
b&
“They have only one use: to kill large numbers of people.”
— which appears to be exactly what these crazies expect to have to do as the anticipated collapse of society happens around them and ‘those’ people come to take their ‘stuff’ from them.
So, I guess we’re kinda stuck
Proposing laws and proffering opinions on how things should be is all well and good. But it is worse than useless to propose changes that are unconstitutional – all that does is drive rednecks to the polls.
There are also unintended consequences to efforts for gun control. For example, due to the previous ban on assault weapons, assault weapons have now become extremely popular. Lots and lots of people own them. A lot of them own them, basically, out of spite.
And, if I understand it correctly, in the recent Supreme Court arguments on the 2nd amendment, the definition of what is a commonly-owned firearm is important. The more commonly-owned is a particular weapon, the more likely its ownership is Constitutionally protected.
So, there is a legitimate question whether the previous assault weapon ban would now be Constitutional, because so many people now own these guns.
This whole question has become more complicated than it was a few years ago. What we could use is an explanation of what the legalities imply for future gun control, and I think there are very few people in the country who know the answers. They sure are keeping quiet on the topic, if they exist at all.
why would people who live in the one of the most prosperous feel so unsafe as to demand to own military style weapons [not that i see any reason to keep armies]?
I find it hard to accept the line that they are meant for entertainment unless we allow that the average American is a savage but with a modern weapon. I see it in no other way
lol.
Maybe Republicans think Hans Gruber will be invading their homes and robbing them of their possessions.
One thing catches my (jaded) attention :
I fail to see why “retired law enforcement” are treated specially. Surely, if they’ve survived on the “mean streets” long enough to make it to retirement, then they’ve figured out which streets are mean enough to not be safe for retired law enforcement, and which streets are safe for retirees. And then to act on that knowledge.
Is there a tradition of retired US law officers becoming caped crusaders, murderous vigilantes, or backwoods survivalists intent on exterminating whole packs of wolves? Outside of Hollywood, of course.
The reason I’m “jaded” on the subject : clearly the American population has accepted the level of gun killings in it’s society – around a half-million every decade-and-a-half – as being a reasonable compromise between danger (gun availability) and civilisation. I don’t anticipate significant change in the foreseeable future.
Is anyone willing to hold a bet on when the first hundred-plus casualty American massacre will take place?
“Is anyone willing to hold a bet on when the first hundred-plus casualty American massacre will take place?”
Some might say not too long after civilians are disarmed by a government that fears and mistrusts an adequately armed citizenry. Happily, the chances of that happening in the US are rather slim.
I’m not sure, but I think it’s because retired law enforcement personnel have spent a professional lifetime pissing off every armed con and thug near and far (and their friends).
Not a cozy retirement, but perhaps better if the former cop relocates, providing (s)he is wealthy enough.
On their own doorstep? Not very far-sighted.
Word gets around. People get recognized.
Which is why most policemen don’t live (or stay in) the communities they police. Even my sister, when she was a Special Constable, was deployed to a different town to the one she lived in.
In the last area that I lived, a resident policeman wouldn’t live to retirement. And they knew it. So they didn’t live there.
Good for them. Here in the southwest US, you live where you police, generally. Communities are way too far apart, and as you might know, our systems of transport suck. Add to that frequently shitty pay & retirement for those in the boonies, and it’s a recipe for getting capped.
A person needs a gun to protect the television set from the local juvenile delinquent and an arsenal to protect that gun from the ATF. You can never have enough firepower to protect yourself from all the bullies you’ve ever met when you’re paranoid.
For you science-minded types: can you find time-series data that reliably correlate reductions in crime with gun bans? Hint: don’t look at places that have comprehensive bans like UK, because they have horrible crime problems in spite of gun bans — they just traded 10 shootings for 50 stabbings http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/21/police-figures-unexpected-drop-crime. Start here at home: “Changes in rates of homicide and suicide for treatment and control states were not significantly different” after passage of the Brady Bill http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=192946
Assault weapons ban is putting 99% of our legislative effort behind .1% of our problem http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun.
I’m convinced that if the legislature acquired magic powers that could make all fabricated weapons disappear tomorrow, people would just go back to hitting each other with rocks. Anyway, rapid prototyping is about to make the idea of banning commodities completely ludicrous http://www.onthemedia.org/2012/nov/02/gun-you-can-print-home/ , so maybe that’s an obsolete approach.
The problem is not that people have guns, the problem is that people want to hurt each other. To solve this, we’d be better off addressing socioeconomic disparity and certain narrowly-defined mental health problems (mental illness overall correlates negatively with violence).
Guns are the wrong problem..
Yes, they are going to have a hard time finding those statistics since the FBI’s own stats show that gun crime is decreasing.
From 10,129 in 2007, to 8,583 in 2011 (the latest available on their website), which is an approximate 15% decrease.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
Righto. According to the study I cited from the Journal of the American Medical Association, the effects of the Brady Bill were invisible.
Gun control: a little doesn’t work at all, so a lot should be better.
“I’m convinced that if the legislature acquired magic powers that could make all fabricated weapons disappear tomorrow, people would just go back to hitting each other with rocks.”
When someone takes out dozens of people in a school in a matter of minutes with a bag of rocks, then you might have a point here.
Blitz442: When someone takes out dozens of people in a school in a matter of minutes with a bag of rocks, then you might have a point here.
How about knives and hammers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%932012)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre
Would we ban hammers because some people hit other people with them, or knives because some people suffer mental illnesses of a sort that make them likely to want to stab other people?
But even allowing that firearms are a problem, the only politically realistic possibility in USA right now is a ‘ban’ that bans practically nothing, and not very well, which will be quickly compensated for by the black market and design modifications by manufacturers. We’ve been through all this before.
Further, even allowing that firearms bans are possible in the context of modern technology (which I dispute), all they will accomplish is to give rather obvious and decisive advantages to young, fit, aggressive, criminal males while denying leveling force to their victims.
Again, mass shootings account for .1% of murders http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun in a context where you are twice as likely to die in an accidental fall than to die in any kind of gun violence http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf and the epidemiology shows that socioeconomic factors are far better predictors of crime than gun ownership or gun regulation.
What I’m asking is: Are our priorities correct if assault weapons bans are what we’re talking about?
The difference between them is a knife and hammer have plenty of other uses and it would inconvenience pretty much everyone to remove them. They also have more limited lethalness, hence why armies tend to prefer firearms nowadays.
Joe bloggs with a hammer is a lot less dangerous than joe bloggs with an L85.
As for using 3d printers for making guns. I am all for that so long as the people trying to use them are standing a decent distance away from me when they try using it. The bit those interviews skim over is the key components, barrel and breach are still taken from real guns. Be a while yet before people can produce them from a printer.
“Joe bloggs with a hammer is a lot less dangerous than joe bloggs with an L85.”
Especially if there’s somebody nearby with a gun that can take him out.
You should look into “network effects” and distributed deterrence. http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/LawyersGunsBurglars.htm
“As for using 3d printers for making guns. … Be a while yet before people can produce them from a printer.”
What’s a “while”? 1 year? 3 years? 10?
Will an assault weapons ban be any less ridiculous in 3 years or 10 than in 1, or more so on the first day after the first printer turns out the first weapon, whenever that is (assuming it hasn’t happened already, which I wouldn’t bet much against)?
Seeing as how someone mentioned hammers and knives, in the UK….
If I was of a mind to walk into a school or a cinema and take out as many people as I could, would I choose to use a knife or a hammer? Not a chance.
To really kill someon with a knife or hammer, you tend to need to be up close and personal. If someone on the other side of the room is my next victim, I need to get there and catch them, or get close enough to do the damage.
With a gun, and lots of ammunition, I can stay where I am and do it relatively safely from a distance.
So, obvioulsy, my weapon of choice for a mass killing spree would probably be some [semi-]automatic gun and a large magazine. Most likely. Or a huge bag of ninja throwing stars, or whatever they are called!
I wonder what the reaction would be if some lunatic decided to invade an NRA get together and slaughter a few dozen of the members? Would the reaction still be “sh!t happens?”. Probably.
Cheers,
Norm.
“Would we ban hammers because some people hit other people with them, or knives because some people suffer mental illnesses of a sort that make them likely to want to stab other people?”
No, unless perhaps the non-lethal uses of hammers and knives were as trivial or nonexistent as the non-lethal uses of guns.
Hammers and knives overwhelmingly pass the cost/benefit analysis – guns don’t.
Blitz442: Hammers and knives overwhelmingly pass the cost/benefit analysis – guns don’t.
OK, Blitz, where’s the data? As it happens, I would love to agree with you, but I cannot, for there is no information in the world that forcible disarmament causes civility, though voluntary disarmament may be something that civilized people do along the way.
It absolutely doesn’t matter how pretty your logic is if reality refuses to cooperate. Work with this: criminals exist, and they will treat you just as brutally even if you can’t defend yourself — but they can be deterred by the fear of death.
Just two of literally hundreds of examples I could throw at you follow.
The findings of two criminologists – Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser – in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:
Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).
Gun Control is Counterproductive, Harvard Law: http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/
… Gary Kleck, a professor at Florida State University’s College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, whose work Justice Breyer cited, said there were good reasons for making a definitive judgment.
“We know the D.C. handgun ban didn’t reduce homicide,” he said in an interview.”
New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/weekinreview/29liptak.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
How’s that for cost/benefit utility?
For what it’s worth, in Britain showing a knife in a public place is at the least going to get you arrested, and is treated very, very seriously by the police. “Seriously”, as in people are routinely Tasered, and occasionally shot. (To get shot by the police in Britain, the armed officers will typically have had to travel dozens of miles to get there, and have received the combination for their gun safe by radio from the control room. They’re not normally allowed to carry their weapons on their person.)
For what it’s worth, in Britain showing a knife in a public place is at the least going to get you arrested, and is treated very, very seriously by the police. “Seriously”, as in people are routinely Tasered, and occasionally shot.
Same here. Google “suicide by cop”.
In the US, both state and federal laws criminalize the brandishing of weapons in public, except as allowed for self-defense. Here’s an example http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-202.html#NRS202Sec320
(To get shot by the police in Britain, the armed officers will typically have had to travel dozens of miles to get there, and have received the combination for their gun safe by radio from the control room. They’re not normally allowed to carry their weapons on their person.)
To me as an American, this appears completely ridiculous. “Oh, dear, I’m awfully sorry, but would you mind terribly stopping killing people, spree killer, while I wait for permission to stop you?”
It beats having armed police on the streets.
When did we last have a spree killing? Dunblane in the early 1990s? Oh, no, there was that taxi driver who was driving around for about 6 hours in Cumbria a couple of years ago. Not that the police knew where he was most of the time, so that’s not really relavent.
Remember, with a population around a fifth of America’s, Britain has around one fiftieth of the gun crime rate. Most Britons (probably) have literally never seen a real gun in Britain, except on an airport policeman in the last few years. So seeing a policeman without a gun is perfectly normal for us.
It just boggles my mind that Britons seem not to care that banning guns probably resulted in a far higher crime rate and more widespread victimization! Do you not care that burglars know that they can terrorize families without any fear of retaliation? Your argument is, “at least we don’t shoot each other”?
But the trouble is that this kind of burglary – the kind most likely to go “wrong” – is now the norm in Britain. In America, it’s called a “hot” burglary – a burglary that takes place when the homeowners are present – or a “home invasion”, which is a much more accurate term. Just over 10 per cent of US burglaries are “hot” burglaries, and in my part of the world it’s statistically insignificant: there is virtually zero chance of a New Hampshire home being broken into while the family are present. But in England and Wales it’s more than 50 per cent and climbing. Which is hardly surprising given the police’s petty, well-publicised pursuit of those citizens who have the impertinence to resist criminals.
These days, even as he or she is being clobbered, the more thoughtful British subject is usually keeping an eye (the one that hasn’t been poked out) on potential liability. Four years ago, Shirley Best, proprietor of the Rolander Fashion emporium, whose clients include Zara Phillips, was ironing some clothes when the proverbial two youths showed up. They pressed the hot iron into her flesh, burning her badly, and then stole her watch. “I was frightened to defend myself,” said Miss Best. “I thought if I did anything I would be arrested.” There speaks the modern British crime victim.
Ooops. Source: An Englishman’s Home is His Dungeoun http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3613417/An-Englishmans-home-is-his-dungeon.html
‘Personal view’ in the Torygraph? That’s really good evidence isn’t it? Maybe next we can have a quote from the Weekly World News.
And while I’m at it –
“It just boggles my mind that Britons seem not to care that banning guns probably resulted in a far higher crime rate and more widespread victimization! Do you not care that burglars know that they can terrorize families without any fear of retaliation?”
That is a completely idiotic statement. British families don’t have guns now – but THEY NEVER HAD GUNS. The chance of a burglar running into a family with a gun is almost nil, now or before Dunblane. A country house or a farm would probably have a couple of shotguns, and I doubt if that’s changed, but a suburban family – no.
And not even the most rabid bring-back-the-rack commenter in the Torygraph would suggest that the way to control crime is more guns.
British families don’t have guns now – but THEY NEVER HAD GUNS.
If you never had guns, then why did you need to ban them?
And not even the most rabid bring-back-the-rack commenter in the Torygraph would suggest that the way to control crime is more guns.
Well, then they should get some evidence.
One out of thirty-one burglars has been shot during a burglary. [FN25] On the whole, when an American burglar strikes at an occupied residence, his chance of being shot is about equal to his chance of being sent to prison. [FN26] If we assume that the risk of prison provides some deterrence to burglary, it would seem reasonable to conclude that the equally large risk of being shot provides an equally large deterrent. In other words, private individuals with firearms in their homes double the deterrent effect that would exist if government-imposed punishment were the only deterrent.
…
The researchers found that six percent of the sample population had used a firearm in a burglary situation in the last twelve months. [FN32]Extrapolating the polling sample to the national population, the researchers estimated that in the last twelve months, there were approximately 1,896,842 incidents in which a householder retrieved a firearm but did not see an intruder. [FN33] There were an estimated 503,481 incidents in which the armed householder did see the burglar, [FN34] and 497,646 incidents in which the burglar was scared away by the firearm. [FN35] In other words, half a million times every year, burglars were likely forced to flee a home because they encountered an armed victim.
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/LawyersGunsBurglars.htm
News flash: the fear of death deters criminals. But you folks seem to have engineered a situation in which even the police can’t stop a determined criminal without getting very specific permission first. All I know is, if somebody comes in my home with ill intent, I hope somebody shoots him before he hurts my wife.
@ Random Commenter
(Re Britain’s lack of armed police):
“To me as an American, this appears completely ridiculous. “Oh, dear, I’m awfully sorry, but would you mind terribly stopping killing people, spree killer, while I wait for permission to stop you?”
You as an American are probably used to seeing guns all over the place. To me, as a New Zealander (and I think our gun situation is similar to the UK), I would be shocked and offended if I saw a policeman wearing a gun. Unless there was some sort of emergency going on.
As it happens I was stopped by the police today, they pointed out my rear number plate was unreadable due to mud (I washed it for them). The encounter was perfectly civil and not at all alarming. (And they didn’t order me to face the car while they frisked me for weapons). I think it would have been far more alarming and intrinsically hostile had they been carrying guns.
To me, the situation you have where y’all are so paranoid you all have to carry guns to protect yourselves from each other – that is completely ridiculous. And sick.
@RandomCommenter You seemed to suggest that the inability of U.K. citizens to get there hands on guns leads to us stabbing each other at every opportunity. The actual figures seem to indicate that knife crime in the UK is much less of a problem than knife crime in the U.S.
From http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/Sn04304
“NHS data suggests there were 4,490 people admitted to English hospitals in 2011/12 due to assault by a sharp object. The lowest level since 2002/03.”
There were 200 homicides due to knives (39% of total murders)
From http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
The figure for the U.S. for 2011 is 1,694.
Allowing for the population difference it looks like the murder rate by knife is at least twice as high in the U.S. as it is in the U.K.
It even seems like our total murder rate by all methods might be less than the U.S. rate of murder attributable to knives alone.
It even seems like our total murder rate by all methods might be less than the U.S. rate of murder attributable to knives alone.
That’s true, and fair. The US has a violent culture.
What I’m getting as is whether or not gun bans solve that problem. I’ll repeat my first question to this thread: “can you find time-series data that reliably correlate reductions in crime with gun bans?”? I’m making a utilitarian argument to the total good, on the bases that widespread firearms ownership is a demonstrable deterrent to criminal offense, while the absence of firearms demonstrably does not erase people’s violent tendencies.
Since the post-Dunblane gun bans in UK and the post-Brady Bill firearms ownerships restrictions in US, comparative data area available on the influence of gun bans on crime rates. I’m not going to flood the thread with research links, as I’ve already posted quite a lot of data, but a fairly solid consensus of experts is that the effect of the gun bans is completely in the noise.
I’m not suggesting that UK citizens are stabbing each other at every opportunity. I’m making the point that there have been consequences to the UK gun ban. Home invasions are up. Sexual assaults are up. And yes, stabbings are up — more than shootings are down, according the the UK source I cited.
I am suggesting that banning weapons doesn’t seem to stop people feeling inclined to hurt each other.
Total homicide rate, firearm homicide rate, and knife homicide rate were lower in UK than in US before the post-Dunblane gun bans, and are still lower after. But the total crime rate in UK post-Dunblane gun ban is higher than in the pre-Dunblane UK. It’s just an empirical fact that banning guns didn’t solve your crime problem, or even your homicide problem. Arguably, it made things quite a lot worse.
…
Dunblane had a more dramatic impact…. A media frenzy coupled with an emotional campaign by parents of Dunblane resulted in the Firearms Act of 1998, which instituted a nearly complete ban on handguns….
The results have not been what proponents of the act wanted. Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time….
I struggle to find data that counters this impression. Can you help me out?
(excerpts, commentary in [brackets])
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900384
Police recorded 550 homicides in 2011-12, 88 fewer than the previous year and the lowest number since 1983.
Provisional data shows 5,911 firearm offences were recorded – 16% down – of which 39 resulted in a death [this is less than half the number from 2001/2, the peak]
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0212/hosb0212?view=Binary
One can assess from this analysis that the number of homicide incidents recorded in 2010/11 was not statistically significantly different to the number of homicide incidents in 2009/10 or 2008/09, despite the actual number of incidents having risen by three per cent since 2009/10. However, the number of homicide incidents recorded in 2010/11 was statistically significantly lower than the number of incidents recorded in 2006/07 and 2007/08, and those recorded between 2000/01 and 2004/05. This means the risk of becoming a victim of homicide was, in fact, lower for 2010/11 compared with those earlier years.
The number of firearm offences has fallen steadily since peaking at 24,094 in 2003/04, and has decreased by over half (53%) since then. This represents a greater fall than in police recorded crime overall, which has fallen by around a third (31%) over the same period (Table 2.04 in Chaplin et al. , 2011). This decrease in firearm offences has largely been due to a reduction in the number of air weapon offences recorded by the police, which has fallen by over two-thirds (69%) since 2003/04. In comparison, non-air weapon offences are almost a third (32%) lower than 2003/04, having peaked later, in 2005/06 (Table 2.01; Figure 2.1)
It looks like overall the number of homicides and the number of
Thanks, but I have the data http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/historical-crime-data/
The problem is that the data don’t establish that the handgun bans caused the reduction in crime. Note that homicide rates http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/stats-on-human-rights/statistics-on-violence/#23 and firearms offenses peaked years after the handgun ban drastically reduced gun ownership http://www.allmystery.de/i/tf81ab2_ukviolentcrimekm2.png, and homicides have since returned to a level just about the same as pre-ban.
Disarmament just doesn’t seem to cause civility, even if civilized people tend to disarm along the way. Better off working on socioeconomic factors of criminal orientation, I think.
The proposed legislation is too long and there is a much simpler solution: Amend the definition of a “firearm” at 26 USC Chapter 53 to include semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns with removable magazines. (All that verbiage on military features avoids the features which make these weapons uniquely dangerous.)
This would have the effect of regulating them just like fully automatic weapons.
Naturally there is no chance of this passing. Heck, it is unlikely that anything will pass.
Not only does your proposal have no chance of passing congress, but it’s probably unconstitutional too.
The basic problem with the proposed assault waepons ban is not that isn’t “simple” but that it’s probably useless, or even worse than useless. As someone elsewhere put it, trying to reduce gun violence by banning certain types of assault weapon is rather like trying to reduce drunk driving by banning certain brands of whiskey. The guns that would be subject to the ban account for only a small fraction of gun violence, and other guns (other assault weapons as well as handguns, rifles and shotguns) can easily be substituted for the banned models. Even the banned models themselves are likely to remain widely available on the black market.
If it is unconstitutional then so is the current regulation of machine guns.
Note that the regulation of machine guns did not make them go away. You can still buy them but they are tightly regulated and there are no more entering the market. We don’t seem to be awash with machine guns.
If it is unconstitutional then so is the current regulation of machine guns.
That doesn’t follow. Machine guns are functionally different from semi-automatic guns and shotguns (with or without removable magazines).
Really? The differences between the semi-automatic AR-15 and fully automatic M-16 are so minor that one little part will make an AR-15 fully automatic.
A part that is as tightly regulated as an M-16.
The issue isn’t how easy it is to convert a semi-automatic weapon to an automatic one, but their treatment under the law. Lots of laws are relatively easy to break.
No, the point at issue is that if it’s constitutional to regulate machine guns, then it must be equally so to regulate assault rifles, shotguns, automatic pistols, hunting rifles, Saturday night specials… they’re all ‘arms’ after all. Or else it’s unconstitutional to regulate any of them. IIRC the Second Amendment doesn’t specifically define ‘arms’.
Well, you are wrong here. Machine guns, cannons, bazookas, etc are considered ordnance, not arms. The right of an individual to own and use these weapons has never been protected under the 2nd amendment. Indeed, cannons, etc were kept locked up in armories even during the days of the Founding Fathers.
And regulation of guns is allowed, it’s the outright banning of classes of them which is problematic.
More importantly for the discussion, machine guns, cannons, etc are not commonly possessed or used by the public. The arguments in the two recent Supreme Court rulings talked about the rights of individuals to have access to commonly used guns. Ironically, this means that the recent upsurge of ownership of assault-style semi automatic weapons now places them in the category of popularly-owned firearms, and therefore decreases the likelihood that banning them would be constitutional.
‘Considered ordnance, not arms’ – by who? I’d suggest that distinction is a self-serving one promoted by whoever’s interests it serves.
For the common meaning of ‘arms’ you could try looking at e.g. the Wikipedia article on ‘arms industry’.
If one is going to go by what the Second Amendment ‘means’, then I submit one has to consider the meaning of the phrase ‘bear arms’ – which I think means, effectively, serve in a military capacity (the nature of the arms being unspecified). One is ‘bearing arms’ whether holding a spear, a rifle or loading a cannon.
I’ve seen many fine arguments in this thread for why we people should be allowed to own a gun like the one JC shows above:
1. slippery slope (tomorrow it’ll be knives!)
2. to fight government tyranny
3. it’s fun, and good bomb owners shouldn’t be
restricted just because there are bad bomb
owners out there.
4. Home defense is more challenging than it
looks.
5. look over there… boring handguns kill the
most.
These are the real arguments that people make all the time. Of course, the list would be remiss without this obvious addition:
6. The unfettered right to own guns in the US
is a religion. The holy text is the 2nd
Amendment.
“why people”. Don’t know where “we” came from.
Why shouldn’t people be allowed to own a gun like the one JC shows above?
We don’t ban things by default and then make exceptions for certain products if and only if people can provide a “reason” to own them. Unless there’s sufficient justification to ban something, people should be allowed to own it for whatever reason they want.
Products that are specifically designed to cause mass murder, a criminal act, might be an exception here.
If someone wants to purchase a product that is specifically designed to kill/maim a lot of people very quickly, but claims that they will never, ever use it for its intended purpose, then what will they be using it for? Whatever those reasons are, can’t we satisfy them with a product that is not nearly as lethal?
But that’s not an exception to the principle I stated. You’re not saying these guns should be banned by default. You’re saying they should be banned for the reason that they are “specifically designed to cause mass murder.” The guns’ manufacturers and owners would probably deny that they are designed for that purpose (“murder” as opposed to self-defense or some other purpose). And they might also argue that the mere fact that something is “designed” for a particular purpose isn’t important anyway. What really matters is not the intentions of the gun’s designer, but the actual effect of the weapon in the real world, and the actual effect in the real world of banning it.
The intentions of the gun designer follow the the desires of the consumer.”
I say again, why does the consumer desire a product that is so lethal if they are not getting any value from that lethality? The manufacterers ultimately follow the desires of their consumers.
If their intention is to just shoot targets, then they should be perfectly happy with a device that is limited to that and perhaps makes loud, machine-gun like noises for good measure.
The intentions of the gun designer follow the the desires of the consumer.”
That obviously just isn’t necessarily true. Many people buy guns because they are collectors who have no intention of ever firing the weapon for any reason, regardless what the gun was “designed” for.
On Antiques Roadshow this week I saw an appraisal of a beautiful old civil war sword. The sword was clearly “designed” to injure and kill people. Should ownership therefore be banned?
Your argument just doesn’t make sense.
“Your argument just doesn’t make sense.”
What doesn’t make sense is comparing old swords to modern assault weapons.
If millions of swords were being sold each year in the US, and swords were implicated each year in mass killings and murders, then yes, it might be a good comparison.
And I would suspect that the value to the consumer in your example is the fact that it is an authentic civil war relic, that only incidentally happens to be a weapon.
Last chance – what is the possible value to the private, nonmilitary consumer of a product with the lethalness of the level of a modern assault weapon?
I could see an argument for the value of the lethality of a hunting rifle. I could see it even for a gun used for home defense in some circumstances.
But for automatic and semi-automatic weapons? Every answer to this question seems ridiculous:
“I can’t defend myself against the imminent government with something that just shoots targets.”
“I can’t brag to my friends about this dangerous weapon if it isn’t actually really, really dangerous.”
“I want to intimidate others.”
“I can’t get that surge of power and confidence from something that could only bruise people.”
Others???
“I can’t defend myself against the imminent government with something that just shoots targets.”
Should read “imminent government takeover”
What doesn’t make sense is comparing old swords to modern assault weapons.
No, what doesn’t make sense is your claim that we should ban ownership of items on the basis of what they were “designed” to do, as opposed to their actual effects in the real world. The antique sword is a clear illustration of the stupidity of such a principle. As Thanny notes below, the vast majority of assault weapons have not been used to “kill large numbers of people” (let alone for “mass murder”) and almost certainly never will be. Arguing for a ban on the basis of “design” is just irrational.
Unfortunately Gary, they are used in the real world to massacre people. These tragedies cannot be discounted as effects in the real world simply because they are relatively rare.
The proper analysis is to ask whether the consumers of these products can get the same benefits, the “fun”, with a non-lethal version.
If you think that a Sandy Hook or two every year or so is a fair trade-off for the “fun” of an assault rifle, when non-lethal versions would supply the same amount of fun and joy, then I’m afraid that we live in different moral universes.
These tragedies cannot be discounted as effects in the real world simply because they are relatively rare.
I didn’t say that. I’m saying that your argument that guns should be banned on the basis of the intentions of their designer doesn’t make any sense. The tragedies you cite are an example of effects, not design. And those tragedies would likely have occurred even if the guns used in them had been banned, because of the ease of substituting other guns for the banned ones. So banning them would likely have had little or no effect on actual violence.
“I’m saying that your argument that guns should be banned on the basis of the intentions of their designer doesn’t make any sense.”
I am evaluating both the design (lethalness) and the effects of that lethalness (specifically the cost/benefits to society at large). But I still think that certain products could be banned based on design alone. An “ACME Anthrax Production and Dispersal Kit” might be such a thing, no matter how many law-abiding collectors this product might have.
But I still think that certain products could be banned based on design alone. An “ACME Anthrax Production and Dispersal Kit” might be such a thing
We ban private possession of biological weapons because of the enormous risk of actual harm they present. If “design” were the criterion, we’d ban antique swords.
Even if your “design” argument made any sense, the fact that an assault weapon ban could be so easily circumvented through substitution of other guns would render it mostly or entirely useless, anyway. Just like the old ban that expired in 2004.
“We ban private possession of biological weapons because of the enormous risk of actual harm they present.”
Not only that – such a product would seem to have no offsetting beneficial use.
But I would argue that assault weapons also pose an enormous risk of actual harm.
But I would argue that assault weapons also pose an enormous risk of actual harm.
What are the actual rates of injury and death from the assault weapons subject to the proposed ban? What fraction of total U.S. firearms injuries and deaths are they?
Non-banned firearms could easily be substituted for banned ones. Also, the ban would apply only to new sales, not guns that are already in circulation. Also, if the ban is passed it is likely to provoke a massive increase in sales of the banned weapons before the ban takes effect (as the previous ban did). Taking all this into account, how much do you expect total rates of firearm injury and death to decline (or rise) as a result of the ban?
I’m not personally arguing for a ban, or even any specific kind of regulation. My goal is only to poke at gun nuts, who need poking at, because a lot have gone off the rails.
I’m sure all sorts of guns are great fun, and I’m all for people being able to do whatever they damn well please, including owning the gun shown above, including owning hand grenades and machine guns. I’m just not for your right to not have to jump through any hoops or take any responsibility for it (in *advance* of blood flowing). I agree that the starting place should always be, “Why shouldn’t I be able to do X?”, but there is no avoiding that everyone still has to exercise their right to do whatever the hell they please within a society, a society that has to live with the consequences of what individuals choose to do. If you sell your handgun to a gang member, or a domestic abuser with a restraining order, it starts to be everyone else’s problem and not just all about you. There is a thread in the gun lobby that is selling a Mad Max free for all view of the world, where society has no interest whatsoever until blood has actually flowed. That view is both infantile and dangerous. Guns don’t bother me in the slightest, even scary looking guns, even automatic weapons. Gun nuts bother me. They bother me because they sell a very broken and toxic version of the social contract.
I’m not accusing you of being such a nut. You might be of course, I haven’t paid enough attention to know ;-). I’m only saying that enough of them exist that they are really giving the whole gun lobby a bad smell.
You want to know what’s religious? The idea that puritanical prohibitionism and aversive emotionalism are good ideas in the face of overwhelming evidence to the effect that we’re paying attention to the wrong problem in the first place.
You want to know what’s really, really boring? Education, social justice, and public health policies. But that’s where the real problems are!
As a point of comparison, I wonder if the NRA was pissed when Lawn Darts were banned?
Or Bucky Balls!
They should have sold them as a kind of frangable ammo, then the CPSC would be powerless to harass them.
“They have only one use: to kill large numbers of people.”
This is patently false. The only estimate I’ve found for privately owned “assault” weapons in the US is about 1.5 million. There have obviously not been 1.5 million mass shootings with such weapons, so the claim quoted above is ludicrous on its face.
Background checks for all gun sales is an entirely reasonable step. Banning specific weapons or clip sizes is not.
The facts show that the US has a violence problem, not a gun violence problem. Removing guns will increase violence with other weapons.
What we have here are two crazy positions.
The NRA on one end thinks guns increase safety in all situations, which is nuts. They also think that anything which attempts to prevent dangerous people from owning guns is illegitimate, which is also nuts.
On the other end, we have people, sadly like Jerry Coyne, who have a visceral dislike of guns, and think anyone who doesn’t share that dislike is some kind of criminal. Banning “assault” weapons or large clips won’t make a dent in violence. Not even in rampage killings, which are mostly done with pistols that have normal clip sizes.
Anyone serious about preventing gun violence in the US should be trying to prevent violence, period. And the top two ways to do that are 1) end the war on drugs, and 2) create a comprehensive social safety net.
Anyone not advocating both of those isn’t serious about reducing violence.
“This is patently false.”
If they are not intended to kill large numbers of people, then they are vastly overengineered products.
Like it or not, the extreme lethalness of these products is critical to their value to the consumer. Wouldn’t sales go down if these weapons were only capable of shooting targets instead of killing people?
There are something like 300 million guns in the US, in 32% of households. A tiny fraction of those guns are used in violent acts, and a tiny fraction of those households are involved in gun violence.
Like it or not, that means the vast majority of guns are bought and sold for a purpose other than violence against humans.
Your inability to square that unequivocal fact with your worldview is your problem.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571454
“The US unintentional firearm deaths were 5.2 times higher than in the other countries. Among these 23 countries, 80% of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States, 86% of women killed by firearms were US women, and 87% of all children aged 0 to 14 killed by firearms were US children.”
I also incorporate facts such as these into my “worldview”.
“Like it or not, that means the vast majority of guns are bought and sold for a purpose other than violence against humans.”
Which are? What are these purposes that are dependent on the lethality of the product? Is having something sitting in a box 24/7 a “use.”
A magazine is nothing but a box with a spring inside.
You could make a large magazine by simply sticking two small magazines together.
The entire debate about banning magazines clearly shows that the entire political and chattering classes have zero familiarity with basic handicraft skills.
And these are some of the same people who correctly understand that the war on drugs, which are much more difficult to manufacture and distribute, is futile.
Just wait until 3-D printing gets to a point where guns can be manufactured in one’s basement.
Bingo!
Shame on me for citing Beck’s show, but Cody Wilson’s the star here: http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/01/17/wiki-weapons-founder-they-can-never-eradicate-the-gun-from-the-earth/
Anybody still think prohibitionism is even relevant?
Prohibition is a straw man. Nobody is arguing for prohibition of guns, only reasonable controls and safety precautions.
In the case of alcohol, a total prohibition failed, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t make sense for us to manage the consumption of alcohol according to some precautions that involve cooperation and compromise between the public interest in safety and the individual interest in recreational freedom. The same applies just as well to guns and automobiles and poisonous substances.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m for background checks and sales receipts in the same way that I’m for driver’s licenses and the FDA. Libertarian, but not stupid :-p
Prohibition is a straw man. Nobody is arguing for prohibition of guns
It never ceases to amaze me how often commenters on this website make factual claims that they clearly do not know to be true. Before making a factual claim, unless you’re absolutely sure it’s true, it’s a good idea to check. Google is your friend. It took me about 10 seconds to find this: Ex-NYC mayor: Ban all guns.
There are many more examples.
Oh dear, I see I need to absolutely qualify everything for the incredibly literally minded.
How about: Nobody with serious influence on Congressional politics is arguing for a total prohibition on a national level. The point was to counter the mythology of pro-gun rights advocates that every attempt at reasonable control is aimed at an eventual total ban, and this simply is not true.
So when you wrote:
“Nobody is arguing for prohibition of guns”
what you actually meant is:
“Lots of people, including prominent political figures like the former Mayor of New York, Ed Koch, and prominent political pundits writing in influential national newspapers and magazines like Noam Scheiber, and are arguing for prohibition of guns”
Got it.
Or, rather than putting words in my mouth, you could read what I just wrote…
What you wrote is “nobody,” which you now claim is completely different from what you actually meant.
Evidently you didn’t notice that I amended “nobody” in response to your nit picking. If you’re going to nit pick, you should at least give someone credit for responding.
Here is the amended version you chose to overlook:
Nobody with serious influence on Congressional politics is arguing for a total prohibition on a national level.
It really takes a special kind of perversity to claim that the difference between “nobody” and many people is “nit-picking.” And even your “amended” (which is to say, completely different) statement is wrong.
Except for the chamber/barrel I’d guess we’re at that point already. Beyond containing the force of the explosion and pushing the bullet in the right direction, can’t everything else be plastic?
In 10 years maybe the’ll be selling ‘gun production’ kits, which consist of a metal tube, downloadable program for your 3-D printer, maybe a few smaller pieces, and that’ll be it. Then what do we do? Its pretty hard to imagine regulating the sale of small metal tubes.
Already downloadable, already here:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/download-this-gun-3d-printed-semi-automatic-fires-over-600-rounds/
There are two reasons why someone might want to own such weapons: one is that they are nuts and they have wild fantasies of killing large numbers of people or engaging in battle with government forces, and the other far more common reason is that they are fun to shoot.
I think cars are a good analogy in many respects. There are high powered vehicles that are not street legal yet many people possess and derive great pleasure in using them in various off-road contexts.
I don’t see any reason that such weapons, and even more powerful automatic weapons, can’t be used with careful controls. For example, if they are kept in lockers at licensed gun clubs, where they may be used in ranges meeting rigorous safety standards.
I think the need of general public safety outweighs the desire for fun of people that want to keep these guns at home. This is at least a reasonable compromise.
“There are high powered vehicles that are not street legal yet many people possess and derive great pleasure in using them in various off-road contexts”
The difference is that there are contexts where I could use a high performance car to its performance capabilities, as intended by its designers, where I am only posing a danger to myself.
Any context where I could use the designed killing power of an assault rifle that you would be ok with?
Outside of a military context, the one I mentioned: on a safe range in a licensed gun club where the weapons are kept locked down at the club.
Re the gun club – Why do they need to be lethal for that purpose? Can’t I enjoy shooting targets on a range with a device that is not capable of killing multiple people in under a minute?
I think it’s fun target shooting with a .22 caliber pistol. But for others the fun of shooting a powerful weapon is like the fun of driving a powerful car. Used safely very lethal weapons won’t kill anyone. The ability to shred a target in a very short burst of fire power is a thrill some people value highly.
I’m saying we should not put that hobbyist recreational enjoyment above public safety, but we can find a way to accommodate it within carefully controlled parameters.
This is an outlet that it seems to me would eliminate a lot of the motivation to avoid legal controls. My experience suggests that the vast majority of gun owners are willing to comply with some rigorous safety standards to enjoy shooting at targets. I think this would strengthen the effectiveness of tight controls aimed at public safety if people can choose to compare the costs of using weapons in a restrictive yet adequate legal context against the costs of risking prosecution and imprisonment for using and storing them illegally at home or outside of a licensed club or range.
“The ability to shred a target in a very short burst of fire power is a thrill some people value highly.”
Sorry, but this is just not convincing to me. I tend to look at this entire issue in a cost/benefit framework, where millions of lethal weapons are circulating in our society, and almost every time they are used as designed (to kill) it is a tragedy. This is not offset by the fact that some people experience a visceral thrill by firing a very dangerous weapon.
And I think that my view of it is fair, as I could see a set of circumstances where, if we are evaluating the pros and cons of the lethality of guns, that they actually come out ahead. For instance, very lethal weapons could serve as a deterrent for crime without firing a shot; if those instances outnumber all of the murders, massacres, accidental shootings, injuries, and suicides, then PERHAPS a rational argument could be made that guns are a net gain. But I haven’t seen any convincing data that this is the case.
PERHAPS a rational argument could be made that guns are a net gain. But I haven’t seen any convincing data that this is the case.
You have the responsibility backwards. The burden is on those proposing a legal restriction to provide rational argument and convincing data that the restriction is justified. Not on those who are skeptical of that claim.
Charlotte Bacon
Daniel Barden
Olivia Engel
Josephine Gay
Dylan Hockley
Madeleine Hsu
Catherine Hubbard
Chase Kowalski
Jesse Lewis
Ana Marquez-Greene
James Mattioli
Grace McDonnell
Emilie Parker
Jack Pinto
Noah Pozner
Caroline Previdi
Jessica Rekos
Avielle Richman
Benjamin Wheeler
Allison Wyatt
If you think we need more data than that to ban civilian possession of assault weapons, fuck you very much.
b&
A list of names is not an argument at all.
You have the responsibility backwards. The burden is on those proposing a legal restriction to provide rational argument and convincing data that the restriction is justified. Not on those who are skeptical of that claim.
How convenient. Attempts to collect data on the subject has been essentially been banned by gun supporters, and now gun supporters claim that there is not enough data so they win by default.
I think that is a really good point. Republicans were successful in subverting the ability of many entities to collect data pertinent to the use of guns in crimes. This needs to be reversed, for what we really need is to have an informed discussion about the topic, and we really can’t do that yet.
For instance, it seems to me that the vast majority of gun violence in the U.S. is drug and gang related. Legalizing drugs, for example might be the best way to eliminate most gun violence in the U.S., as opposed to gun control.
But we can’t address that issue, because the data has not been collected properly.
Attempts to collect data on the subject has been essentially been banned by gun supporters
I agree we need a lot more data on gun prevalence, gun availability, etc. to be able to make confident claims about their relationship to public safety. That’s one reason why I am so critical of dogmatic assertions by anti-gun fanatics about the benefits of stricter gun control.
No such firearm. Even a musket can be reloaded and fired more than once per minute.
More to the point, there are a host of ways to kill multiple people in under a minute that have nothing to do with firearms.
You believe guns exist only to kill people. That’s simply not a fact about the world, which is evident to anyone who compares the number of guns and gun owners in existence with the quantity of gun violence.
“You believe guns exist only to kill people”
No, I don’t. They can be used as great paper weights too.
It’s just when I compare the non-lethal uses of guns to the carnage, misery, and cost that results from the lethal uses of guns, I fail to see how we come out ahead (although I did outline in an earlier post a hypo where that could be the case).
I also would never expect a gun manufacturer to claim that, when they contemplated the design of their product, the furthest thing from their mind was that it might be capable of killing someone.
For the last time, if guns have all of these wonderful non-lethal uses, let’s see products that retain that wonderfulness but with greatly reduced or nonexistent lethality.
“if you want to protect yourself or an intruder, there are handguns and rifles with smaller stores of ammo or bolt action reloading.”
Well, this question could be answered, Jerry, but I’m afraid you’ll have to watch/listen to a lot of video/audio of people dying to start to realize how intellectually lacking that was to say. You’ve pulled some functional equivalent of O’Reilly asking about the tides: it was clear to anyone who understand physics that O’Reilly doesn’t, and it’s clear to anyone who understands firearms and protection that you are just as ignorant on this subject as was he on physics.
Perhaps you could track down and watch the shooting death of Mark Coates. And then call his family and say his revolver was good enough. If he couldn’t stop the bad guy with 6 shots, oh well; revolvers are still good enough.
As an immigrant from India, the gun culture in this country has always puzzled me as I was initially unaware of the constitutional protections. After reading a lot about the second ammendment and all that it looks to me like banning all or specific types of guns will never pass. The best one can hope for is a restacking of the supreme court who view the 2nd ammendment right in a more restrictive sense.
What I do not understand is the opposition to regulating guns at the same level as automobiles!! All guns, irrespective of the type should be registered with the government and registration should be renewed every year. Just like automobiles, one ought to get a license to operate guns with type/class of weapon specified and only after passing a test that demonstrates the ability to safely use and store the weapon. Like owning an automobile, the owners of guns should be required to carry liability coverage. Like automobiles, even private sales should be registered with added caveats for background checks etc. Similarly ammunition purchases should also be registered and tracked. None of this will restrict the right to own guns, it might make it a little bit costlier though.
The most common argument from gun-owners are a> Protecting oneself and ones family in the case of a home invasion b> The fight against government tyranny. Nothing proposed above restricts a private citizen from owning a weapon for the former purpose. As for the latter, one can argue that cars and gasoline are just as necessary as guns in a hypothetical rebellion against a tyrannical government. If people don’t object to regulations of the sale/ownership of automobiles, why do they oppose regulating guns?
+1
Indeed.
I would suggest someone who thinks they are going to fight the largest best equipped, best trained armed forces on it’s home turf is seriously deluded, mentally unbalanced and should be disqualified from owning firearms of any type, including cap guns.
If the argument for owning guns is they need them if the government goes bad, then they also need ALL the weapons of war, tanks, jet fighters, bombers, artillery, fuzed smart carpet bombs, etc, etc, etc. But that would be insane. In fact we see the results of when extremists get weapons in a number of countries. The result isn’t pretty.
Neither is what happens when you allow anyone to have a firearm without any real restrictions. Which is the general state of affairs in the USA.
No other country requires armed guards in it’s schools.
Further, the argument posed by the author is that assault weapons must not be too different then any other because they need a long list of excluded weapons. But that is a result of the human classification systems and the large range of guns. It doesn’t negate the argument that assault weapons are designed and built for urban killing. Modern assault weapons were designed for this very purpose. Lightweight, short barrel and stock so the weapon can be swung back and forth in tight areas, as apposed to a regular hunting shotgun or rifle which are a major pain in the ass in urban areas.
The gun cult is fine with thousands and thousands of men, women and children dying every year. They have no moral problem and don’t care about reality. Indeed even laws like requiring them to be locked away when at home unsupervised are hated. And children die because of them.
For some, there is no reason or reasonable laws. I say let them have their say, and ignore them.
I would suggest someone who thinks they are going to fight the largest best equipped, best trained armed forces on it’s home turf is seriously deluded, mentally unbalanced and should be disqualified from owning firearms of any type, including cap guns.
I see this meme often from anti-gun fanatics — the mocking claim that it’s preposterous to believe that ordinary civilian citizens could effectively fight a tyrannical U.S. government. But it’s the anti-gunners’ claim that deserves to be mocked. Their unstated assumption that the professional military would be monolithically loyal to the tyrannical regime, that no generals or majors or admirals or privates would side with the rebels, is highly implausible. A more likely scenario is that the military would also be divided, with some forces joining the rebels. The rebels would likely have access to at least some large-scale and sophisticated weaponry from U.S. forces. In addition, foreign governments would likely aid the rebels with armaments and other supplies (as the U.S. and other governments have in various conflicts around the world). Privately-owned firearms — around 300 million guns in total — could play a crucial role in such a conflict. There are many real-world examples of conflicts in which amateur citizen-soldiers have successfully repelled professional military forces through sabotage, ambushes, raids and other guerilla tactics. The clearest example in recent history is probably the Soviet invasion and subsequent withdrawal from Afghanistan in the 1980s.
I don’t believe the potential to fight a tyrannical government is a particularly strong argument for private possession of firearms. But neither is it the absurdity that people like you claim it is.
Those commenters who have resorted to ad hominem attacks know they’re wrong and that the facts don’t support their cause. I have a difficult time believing that all of these anti-gunners are complete idiots. This is all about ideology and confirmation bias run amuck.
History, reason, statistics, experience…all of these things mean nothing to those with an emotionally driven agenda to push.
I have a difficult time believing that all of these anti-gunners are complete idiots. This is all about ideology and confirmation bias run amuck.
Right you are, gm.
By pure coincidence, I’m reading Michael Shermer’s book The Believing Brain. I just finished typing the following into my notes:
… [Y]our estimation of the probability of dying in a plane crash (or lightning strike, shark attack, terrorist attack, and so on_ will be directly related to the availability of just such an event in you world, especially your exposure to it in mass media. If newspapers and especially television cover an event there is a good chance that people will overestimate the probability of that event happening. An Emory University study, for example, revealed that the leading cause of death in men — heart disease — received the same amount of media coverage as the eleventh-ranked cause: homicide. I addition, drug use — the lowest-ranking risk factor associated with serious illness and death — received as much attention as the second-ranked risk factor of poor diet and lack of exercise. Other studies have found that women in their forties believe they have a 1 in 10 chance of dying from great cancer, while their real lifetime odds are more like 1 in 250. This effect is directly related to the number of news stories about breast cancer.
p 270 – 271
What we have here is a serious misjudgment of risk, resulting in a commensurately maladjusted policy priority.
Great stuff, there. Now…to play Devil’s Advocate for a minute. Is the fact that I am a combat veteran something to be taken into consideration when I speak and write of the possibility of having to use a firearms to defend myself? Is my perception of reality negatively colored or distorted by my experiences as a private military contractor and government troop or is my experience something that makes me a more well-rounded person and thus better equipped to discuss and ponder such matters as violence?
That’s enough, godless. You are dominating this thread and nobody’s mind is being changed by anybody else’s argument. Time to wrap this up.
“The gun cult is fine with thousands and thousands of men, women and children dying every year. They have no moral problem and don’t care about reality.” Very well said Mike.
I think Gary’s rather bizarre fantasy about the army joining his rebellion rather proves your point.
I think Gary’s rather bizarre fantasy about the army joining his rebellion
As opposed to your even more bizarre fantasy that the military would entirely side with your tyranny.
Hey, your side is the one fantasizing about tyrannical governments in the first place.
Two things I find incredible.
First, that any country should have a constitutional provision for facilitating armed rebellions. (Actually, I much doubt that was the intent, far more likely they intended an armed militia for defence against foreign invasion on the Swiss model).
Second, that such a country should be incapable of amending any out-of-date or erroneous wording in its laws – or its constitution. This ain’t the Bible (or is it? Fanatical devotion to the Word, check. Professions that the Word is sacred and infallible, check. Multiple interpretations of the meaning of the Word, check. Oh well…)
And third, (okay, three things!) that the most powerful country in the world is incapable of doing something (control guns) which a vast majority of its citizens find desirable and which almost every other country in the developed world can and has done with not much difficulty.
Weird.
You’re telling me.
Microraptor:
Fantasy? Change the context to the War on Some Drugs, FISA, the two Patriot Acts, drone assassinations, the fact that we have 5% of the world’s population and 25% of its prisoners, worldwide military hegemony (5% of the world’s population and 41% of its military budget), and I’ll bet that you would have no problem at all with the word tyrannical.
It’s already here. But say it weren’t–look at all of the tyrannical governments around the globe. But not here, you say?
OK–not here, not now, not YET. Stable democracies (I won’t say “peaceful”) have come and gone. But NOW, in THIS context, NOW you want to buy the myth of “American exceptionalism”?
At no point did I say I supported everything the government does.
But I do think that I can do a hell of a lot more to change it by doing things like writing letters to my Congressman or exercising my right to protest government actions via peaceful assembly than I could if I tried using guerrilla warfare, though maybe I wouldn’t have as good a chance at ending up on the nightly news.
That’s an evasive response. You made a specific reference to “fantasizing about tyrannical governments.”
I gave a short list of FACTS from which reasonable people MIGHT conclude that the present U.S. government meets the definition of “tyrannical.”
It would seem to me that you could either admit that you were wrong, and that references to a tyrannical government are anything but fantasies, or you could argue that the facts I cited are not evidence of a tyrannical government.
But whether you support everything the government does, or not, is off-topic and irrelevant.
Hey, your side is the one fantasizing about tyrannical governments in the first place.
Well done. Yet another bizarre nonsequitur.
Interestingly one of the purposes of the militia is to suppress insurrections, not support them, and to act under the direction of the president. If you read the constitution, it’s pretty clear on these points. It’s a very bizarre proposition to construe things otherwise. Anyway, here’s a nice cartoon:
http://farleftside.com/2013/1-16-13-second-dementia.html
Great cartoon.
And an interesting quote in the accompanying text: “What you may not realize is that the Second Amendment was primarily designed to enforce slavery. It allowed southern states to form special militias that patrolled the plantations and kept the slaves from escaping, or revolting. (What? You think the slaves stayed put because they liked the weather?) That’s why the amendment reads “being necessary to the security of a free state” rather than a “free country”. That’s also why it says “militia” because that legally excluded the slaves.”
Sounds quite credible to me, I can just imagine the paranoia that must have gripped the south at any thought of a slave revolt.
Oh, and a further comment from that post that Andy linked to:
“Regarding the 2nd Amendment being for the control of slaves, I hope you’ve all been watching “The Abolitionists” on PBS this month. Part 2 of the three-part mini-series ran on Tuesday night.
The Compromise of 1850 was mentioned in Part 2. Before the bill was passed, several Northern states had passed laws prohibiting local law enforcement officers from helping Southern bounty hunters in their efforts to catch runaway slaves.
The Compromise of 1850 not only nullified all of those laws, it also made it possible for any Northerner to be forcibly deputized by a Southern fugitive slave hunter to aid in the hunt.
If you missed the first two episodes, you can watch them at PBS.org or at your local PBS station’s website.”
It would appear that the Second Amendment was even less noble and high-minded than we thought it was…
Oops! It would seem that I confused the Compromise of 1850 with the Second Amendment. I withdraw that last comment in my previous post and why the heck doesn’t WP have an Edit function?
I noticed something recently that I would probably have considered heavy-handed and ridiculous if it had been in fiction instead of reality:
The political issues of gun control and abortion are really, really good analogies of each other.
Both issues involve something that members of one side consider a fundamental right. They get emotional at the idea of their rights being taken away, and often believe the motive of the other side is to control them.
Members of the other side either deny that such a right exists or believe that it should be regulated or eliminated. The justification they use is that the execution of the right is tied to murders or deaths that would be prevented by the regulations they propose. Because it is politically unfeasible to implement the regulations they want, they settle for attempting to chip away at the right in question with whatever legislation they can get away with. They often believe members of the other side are irresponsible and immoral.
It should be more surprising that so many people are either pro-choice while advocating more gun regulations or pro-life while opposing gun regulations.
You make a very interesting point. Well done.
I’m pro-choice for gun rights and for abortion rights. At least I’m consistent…
I would suggest that you have this back-asswards.
Anti-abortion nuts impose pain and suffering on women through legal means; gun-wielding assailants also impose pain and suffering on their victims… The consistent position is reducing suffering, not being pro-death.
Far more inconsistent positions would be being Christian and pro-gun, or being “pro-life” while supporting the death penalty.
+1
And people who are pro-life insist that abortions impose pain and suffering on fetuses (admitedly, the lack of evidence for this is one of the points where the analogy breaks down). Similarly gun owners insist that gun ownership will protect them and their families from pain and suffering at the hands of criminals.
You don’t get to claim a monopoly on the moral high ground: everyone thinks that they are supporting what’s right. Your response here is a perfect example of believing “members of the other side are irresponsible and immoral.”
This is nowhere near the restrictions we have in Australia. Whilst not fully agreeing with some of the laws governing my gun ownership I have no difficulty in complying. I own a D B 12 gauge, a .22 Baikal, and a 222 Saiko. Sufficient for me to also comply with the laws whereby I have to eliminate feral animals.
The Shot gun was also handy late one night when intruders entered the property with malice aforethought. One look at my stark naked son armed with the 12 bore and they took off. I still think the gun wasn’t what caused them to hastily depart..
Useful, thanks. Australia is often represented in the US as a place with positively draconian firearms restrictions.
People have tole me they need such weapons to protect themselves against a rogue government — to fight back when/if our government becomes something like the German government of circa 1930.
I find it difficult to counter such an argument. Who wants such a runaway government?
But who wants a bunch of yahoos toting assault weapons, who could well become the next SS if some flake comes to power.
It is clearly too late to stop the widespread availability of assault weapons in the US. It will only end when some catastrophe happens that is so large people are shocked beyond belief. Many people will die before that happens — 10^5 or more in a short-time….
Define “short time”? Like, a year. That’s around the normal annual hecatomb in America.
Stick another factor of ten onto it?
A while ago someone pointed out that since 1960-odd a total of around 1.5 million people have been killed with guns in America (30,000/year) ; I don’t know if that figure is accurate, but it’s sobering.
gravelinspector-Aidan, I think you are right! Even Politifact verified the numbers: Since 1968, “more Americans have died from gunfire than died in … all the wars of this country’s history.” Which is about 1.4M.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/18/mark-shields/pbs-commentator-mark-shields-says-more-killed-guns/
Looks good enough for me.
Some people would quibble with the fact that they’re counting homicides, suicides and “accidental deaths” (some of which may well be unidentified homicides or suicides). I don’t have a problem with them doing this : suicidal people will simply use the tools available (what’s that Dot Parker poem about “nooses slip / gas smells awful …”?). And of course, it’s a lot harder to have second thoughts after blowing your head off, compared to after swallowing a bucket full of pills. Likewise, accidental deaths in a lower-gun society are not going to include accidents of cleaning the guns, or of children finding them.
“I find it difficult to counter such an argument. Who wants such a runaway government?”
It’s easy: The government has more and bigger guns than you do. Yes, the amendment reflects to experience in the revolutionary war where a ragamuffin militia with their own guns defeated the British Empire. No, it’s not relevant today.
In order to see how absurd that argument is (i.e. the one about the militia overthrowing the government) one only has to visualise it. The NRA with its automatic assault weapons against the government’s Apache attack helicopters, drones and A-10’s with GAU-8 30mm rotary cannon…
The only way the insurgency would last more than a couple of days would be, ironically, for them never to open fire and hope the evil government is reluctant to take the first shot; or else hide amongst the population and maybe take lots of hostages – just like terrorists, actually. None of which would require anything more lethal than hunting rifles or shotguns.
I’m not being deliberately absurd, here… the absurdity is inherent in the basic concept.
One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. Or should that be vice versae?
Knives and clubs, actually. Firearms would make the job easier, but are hardly necessary.
“the revolutionary war where a ragamuffin militia with their own guns defeated the British Empire”
As opposed to Vietnam, or more recently Iraq, where relatively poorly armed militants caused serious probelms for the US military?
Or Syria, today, where poorly supported rebel groups did well enough against the government that outside organizations started supporting them?
No one thinks one person can hold out against a military, that’s why no one’s concerned about a group of crazies taking over. But if the government ever really became a dictatorship, and everyone decided to fight it, it would be different. That this situation is astronomically unlikely is a better argument, which is why most gun ownership proponents argue based on self defense instead.
It’s easy: The government has more and bigger guns than you do.
Bigger, perhaps, but the US citizenry has ninety times as many firearms as all divisions of government combined. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
This persistently fails to result in anarchy, of course.
Side note: the popular version of story isn’t even true. The ragamuffin militia was losing until it hired foreign experts to come in and train it into becoming a real army, at which point it began having more success against the British and winning more battles.
Furthermore, the only reason that the British Army didn’t win was because of the decision that they weren’t going to bother pulling in a lot more troops from other colonies and eventually the Crown decided that the fight simply wasn’t worth continuing. It’s not like Washington had led his army all the way to London and laid siege to Buckingham Palace before forcing the king to surrender or anything.