Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Logic of Gun Control
A New York Times story about the National Rifle Association's decision to move its 2007 convention out of Columbus in response to the city's new "assault weapon" ban reveals what passes for logic among defenders of such laws (emphasis added):
Supporters of the Columbus law, including the police officers union, said they pushed for a local ban in response to the expiration of the federal law. They said that the Columbus police had confiscated larger numbers of military-style weapons in recent years from criminals, including a murder suspect who wounded a police officer in a fierce gun battle last year.
"We need anything that puts another tool in our belt to keep weapons out of criminals' hands," said Detective Daniel R. Jones, the officer who was wounded in that firefight and has lost hearing in one ear.
The weapon that injured Detective Jones was a fully automatic AK-47 rifle that was illegal even before Columbus enacted its ban on assault weapons, the police said.
This bait-and-switch reflects the deception at the heart of "assault weapon" bans, whose advocates deliberately blur the distinction between machine guns and the firearms covered by the laws. More broadly, it reflects the gun control movement's fondness for non sequiturs and the sort of magical thinking that makes it possible to imagine that a law will eliminate guns it does not even ban.
|7.19.05 @ 12:07PM|#
How obvious can this be? Not only would the new law not address
the actual weapon used, the old laws that banned the weapon
obviously didn't prevent its use by a criminal.
So tell me again how this gun ban thing works?
|7.19.05 @ 12:07PM|#
to keep weapons out of criminals' hands
How about keeping criminal hands off weapons? Seems more
to-the-point to me. It must be easier to blame the object than the
person who wields it.
"I was just sittin' on the stoop, when this assualt rifle came by
and jumped into my hands. It made me rob the liquor store. Evil
gun!"
|7.19.05 @ 12:11PM|#
I live in an east-side suburb of Columbus and feel MUCH safer. Now, instead of coming into my neighborhood where they might be shot at, criminals might stay several blocks west in Columbus where the law abiding citizens are known to be unarmed! Ah the law of unintended consequences. Give it a year or two - no crime rate improvement in the City, but the 'burbs will drop.
|7.19.05 @ 12:14PM|#
Bravo! Well said, Jacob.
The Columbus ban is a perfect example of the bait-'n'-switch of
which Jacob speaks.
The following is an excerpt from the new Columbus law:
"Automatic firearm" means any firearm designed or specially
adapted to fire a succession of cartridges with a single function
of the trigger. "Automatic firearm" also means any semiautomatic
firearm designed or specially adapted to fire more than thirty-one
cartridges without reloading, other than a firearm chambering only
.22 caliber short, long, or long-rifle cartridges.
In other words, the Columbus city council sees absolutely no
distinction between, say, a belt-fed FN249 Squad Automatic Weapon
and a tricked-out AR15 for use in Service Rifle, CMP, or National
Match competition.
Yet another perfect example of the 2+2=5 style of thinking that
runs rampant through the anti-gun movement.
|7.19.05 @ 12:18PM|#
Incidentally, the hyperlinked article for the word "blur" doesn't show up for me. Looks like the link is missing a ".html" or somesuch on the end.
|7.19.05 @ 12:50PM|#
Come on, Hedgehog. Banning semiautomatic rifles capable of
carrying more than 31 rounds is not the same thing as leaving
everybody "unarmed." There's certainly a lot of room to oppose this
law, but it doesn't leave the population of Columbus to ward off
burglars with butter knives.
Durin the runup to the non-renewal of the federal assault weapons
ban, I saw a cop on one of the morning shows firing an AR-15 at a
cinder block, to show how much damage it can do. Pow. Pow. Pow.
Yep, it can blast big chunks out of a cinder block.
Nobody bothered to ask the cop, "So, what kind of damage can a
legal rifle do that cinder block?"
|7.19.05 @ 12:57PM|#
So, joe, what you're saying is that you support a law that would
incarcerate someone for owning a peice of aluminum sheetmetal
folded to hold 30 rounds of ammunition?
Besides, you're falling into the logical fallacy of "bad guns" vs.
"good guns"
Nobody bothered to ask the cop, "So, what kind of damage can a
legal rifle do that cinder block?"
This I will agree with. Generally speaking, Grandpa's old hunting
rifle fires a heavier cartridge that flies further than any of the
so-called "assault" rifles.
|7.19.05 @ 1:11PM|#
However, you don't seem terribly troubled by it. But that may just simply be a function of the whole "gun thing" being my pet issue.
doinkicarus|7.19.05 @ 1:14PM|#
As much as I hate to resort to cliche, ["banning firearms
ensures that only criminals will have firearms"]the ban just
creates a new set of criminals (that hitherto were not
criminals)
I wrote a very poorly written (in retrospect) paper my sophmore
year of college regarding gun-control, or more specifically, the
2nd amendment right, on the "original intent." I've got the
federalist papers in my car, and given a few minutes I'm sure I
could locate the passages where Publius states in no uncertain
terms that the right of the people to bear arms is specifically
provided for the defense against tyranny. (probably preaching to
the choir, here, though.)
But the basic point that i think everyone is making is: Access to
firearms (of any variety) does not and will not make a law-abiding
person a criminal
|7.19.05 @ 1:19PM|#
mediageek - quite possible...I know I've gotten into it with joe
about gun issues, even when I know he's not totally into gun
control, because it's such a big deal with me.
I've lived in AZ for years, and always lived on the west coast, and
it's usually folks from back east who are just freaked out by the
gun thing (especially NE folks). My friend used to carry, both
concealed and non-concealed, and people would ask him questions
like "why would you ever need to carry a gun" and the usual. Of
course, these were liberal arts students, many of whom were quite
lefty, so I wasn't surprised. But it's amazing how their attitude
is fairly condescending. Like they think you're some uncultured
yokel.
I may be a redneck, but I got me some culture, dammit. I done
travelled to Europe and everything! :)
Shannon Love|7.19.05 @ 1:20PM|#
This kind of think shows up in regard to a lot of bad law. The
basic form is: "The law we have now isn't working so we need an
even more powerful version of it." Proponents rarely stop to ask if
the fault lies in the basic unworkability of the concept behind the
law rather than the strength or weakness of the law itself. After
all, if what your doing now isn't working why do think that doing
it even harder would work better?
Such as "its not working, do it harder" thinking shows up in drug
laws, drunk driving laws, environmental laws and other areas where
state power often seems to many to inexplicably fail.
Shannon Love|7.19.05 @ 1:29PM|#
"Come on, Hedgehog. Banning semiautomatic rifles capable of
carrying more than 31 rounds is not the same thing as leaving
everybody "unarmed.""
No, but it shear utter ineffectiveness means that the real intent
of the law is to establish a precedent for controlling what
weapons, if any citizen may keep. The kind of crimes that would be
functionally enabled by a long clip are so rare that banning the
clips serves no practical purpose. It merely keeps the State's foot
in the door. If they can establish a precedent for banning one
class of weapons then they have better grounds for banning
others.
Ineffective laws passed for dishonest purposes are the worse laws
of all.
|7.19.05 @ 1:36PM|#
Shannon - it's the conspiracy theorist/paranoid in me that
totally hates all gun control for that very reason. It's not like
they're really doing it to deter crime. They're doing it to keep
control. First, it says to citizens "don't defend yourself, rely on
your government to protect you" and second, it says "we don't want
you having access to these types of weapons so that you're more
helpless".
They both go hand-in-hand and, of course, the latter is much more
paranoid-sounding, but that's how I feel about it.
Goddamn, I sure do not trust the government, as if nobody
could tell. Still, I surprise myself sometimes! :)
|7.19.05 @ 1:40PM|#
Yes, yes, Shannon, and then they'll start collecting people's
precious bodily fluids.
Isn't it a little more likely that the law was intended to restrict
particularly dangerous weapons, and was written and supported by
people who don't actually know a great deal about firearms? That's
why I supported it, back when I supported it - because I thought
that "Assault Weapons," as defined in the federal law, were
actually much more dangerous than "normal" rifles.
The ignorance of the subject on the part of some gun controllers
isn't very helpful, but neither is the commies-under-the-bed
paranoia of some gun rights enthusiasts.
|7.19.05 @ 1:43PM|#
It takes about 3 minutes to convert a semi-auto AK to
full-auto.
How do you know?
|7.19.05 @ 1:44PM|#
joe
"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get
you" - Frank Burns
|7.19.05 @ 1:45PM|#
No, but it shear utter ineffectiveness means that the real
intent of the law is to establish a precedent for controlling what
weapons, if any citizen may keep.
Perhaps, but I think a better explantion is that the law allows
politicians to curry favor with the polloi who want to see
that the government is protecting them from scary things like
guns.
|7.19.05 @ 1:47PM|#
BA Iconoclast: Are you familiar with Mayor Nagin in New Orleans? He seems to be looking at the job like a businessperson rather than as a fur-draped king.
|7.19.05 @ 1:52PM|#
Shannon- the particularly infuriating thing is that Columbus
already has classified magazines that hold more than 30 rounds as
"destructive devices."
So now a National Match tuned competition AR15 is the same as a
belt-fed machinegun, which only makes sense, because the law there
already states that a 30+ round magazine is "dangerous
ordnance."
Yep, according to a law already on the books in Ohio, a bit of
stamped sheet metal is the same as a grenade or RPG.
|7.19.05 @ 1:52PM|#
That's just it, joe. The people, like cops, who should know a
lot about firearms support these bullshit bans when you know they
know better. Just like your example of the cop shooting the cinder
block with an AR-15. Give me my Winchester .30-30 carbine, and I'll
tear that cinder block a new one, as well. But it sure doesn't look
like an assault rifle. Well, in the late 1800's it looked like an
assault rifle, but today it looks like a relic.
Anyway, I'm more worried about the commies under my bed. :)
|7.19.05 @ 1:52PM|#
Shannon,
Amen, sister. However [annoying pedantic mode on],
The kind of crimes that would be functionally enabled by a long
clip...
I'm sure you meant 'magazine' :) [pedantic off]
Jack,
It takes about 3 minutes to convert a semi-auto AK to
full-auto.
With that statement, you are dangerously close to a Federal felony.
I'm not kidding.
As far as the gun ban and the NRA, this is the city's third crack
at an 'assault weapon' ban, the first two having been struck down.
There is some reason to think that the NRA was perfectly aware of
the city's planned gun ban (they've been working on it for two
years, according to the local NPR station) and that the NRA may
have chosen Columbus just so they could walk noisily away if the
gun ban passed. I mean, why else would they come to Columbus?
Eeewww.
|7.19.05 @ 1:55PM|#
joe,
I'm usually critical of conspiracy theories, but the gun-grabber
conspiracy isn't a conspiracy at all. It's right in the open. There
are dozens on on-the-record quotes from various leaders of the gun
control movements, stating that their true goal is ... wait for it
... confiscation of all firearms! It's one time where there
actually is a slippery slope. Eugene Volokh has written on this a
few times, but for some reason, I can't find the cite right
now.
|7.19.05 @ 2:04PM|#
What Steve says is true. It's not a conspiracy if it's right out
in the open. Advocates of gun control from Dianne Feinstein (Mr.
& Mrs. America, turn them all in) to Tom Diaz of the Violence
Policy Center (confirmed handgun owner, BTW) to Sarah Brady, who
originally named her organization The National Coalition to Ban
Handguns.
And when they haven't seeked to outlaw firearms outright, they seek
to exert controls that would make them useless as a defensive
weapon: campaigning at every step against liberalized concealed
carry laws, pushing for so-called "safe storage" laws, or trying to
pass a mandate that some arbitrary number of rounds constitutes an
"arsenal."
Joe, it isn't a conspiracy, but mostly because it's all right there
in press releases, proposed legislation, and videotaped
interviews.
|7.19.05 @ 2:07PM|#
"BA Iconoclast: Are you familiar with Mayor Nagin in New
Orleans? He seems to be looking at the job like a businessperson
rather than as a fur-draped king."
Dynamist, no, I'm not familiar with him. Thanks, I'll definitely
check him out.
I hate to sound like one of those Diversity Seminar Types, but it
would be nice if we had more Latinos and Asians run for office in
Central Ohio (hopefully of the libertarian stripe, or at least "New
Democrat" like Bill Richardson of New Mexico), rather than the
usual good 'ol boy white nepotists and welfare-state negro hand-out
artists.
Maybe we could sic that Mencia guy from Comedy Central on Coleman
and his ilk ...
|7.19.05 @ 2:09PM|#
It takes about 3 minutes to convert a semi-auto AK to
full-auto.
Cool. Can you show me how? :)
|7.19.05 @ 2:13PM|#
Isn't it a little more likely that the law was intended to
restrict particularly dangerous weapons,
Define "particularly dangerous." Not even military experts and the
people tasked with manufacturing ammunition and guns can agree on
the standards of what results in higher lethality, let alone come
to any sort of scientific consensus on the topic. Bottom line is
that using words like "particularly dangerous" makes for a good
soundbite, but ultimately means nothing.
and was written and supported by people who don't actually know
a great deal about firearms?
Gee, perhaps if they'd actually listen to all of those crazy,
gun-toting neanderthal wifebeaters they'd learn a thing or two.
|7.19.05 @ 2:17PM|#
The thing that irritates me is when they go with the whole
"legitimate sporting purpose" bit. I don't hunt. In my youth I
would occasionally kill a furry critter and I finally stopped
because I found it personally repugnant (and all you hunters don't
jump on me, I have nothing against YOU hunting. I just choose not
to).
So my sole purpose for owning guns is to shoot people who are doing
bad things in my house (joe's probably right in that they won't
help me successfully defeat tyranny). And thus, I won't be placated
by the hunting argument. A lot of guns are for killing people, and
that's just the way it is.
|7.19.05 @ 2:24PM|#
The ignorance of the subject on the part of some gun
controllers isn't very helpful, but neither is the
commies-under-the-bed paranoia of some gun rights
enthusiasts.
It doesn't have to be about paranoia, Joe. The simple fact is that
the less power individuals have to defend themselves, the greater
the potential for tyranny. The country was founded in such
a way to deliberately limit that potential by placing an
extraordinary value on individual rights, including the 2nd, and
sharply limiting the centralization of power.
Maybe you feel that the potential for tyranny is not increased
greatly with measures like this, while the safety of the population
is. It's not an unreasonable belief at all. However, the gun
controllers absolutely want to remove all firearms from us, and
this is but one step towards that goal. At that point, I'd think
you'd agree, that the potential for tyranny has far outstripped any
safety increase.
|7.19.05 @ 2:28PM|#
While the federal assault-weapon ban was most likely
unconstitutional, and largely ineffectual, I don't think it's
beyond reason to allow local municipalities to enact their own gun
laws. For example, I recently went hunting with a friend in a
central Virginia county that banned rifle hunting, only allowing
shotguns. The reasons made perfect sense. The landscape was densely
wooded, limiting visibility, and rifle bullets carry much farther
than shotgun shot. While usage is different from gun ownership, I
think that local governments can establish their own policies for
gun ownership. Rural Montana and Manhattan should, and do, have
different gun laws.
And while there is almost nothing preventing criminals from
possessing banned firearms, which is why I oppose most gun laws, I
do believe the government can limit the types of weapons Americans
can own. Certainly it should be illegal for Americans to possess
anti-aircraft weapons, for issues of public safety, even though
those weapons could be used in defense of tyranny.
|7.19.05 @ 2:29PM|#
"Gee, perhaps if they'd actually listen to all of those crazy,
gun-toting neanderthal wifebeaters they'd learn a thing or
two."
Really? You'd be honest and tell them what firearms they SHOULD be
banning? Or would you just tell them not to ban anything, thank
you?
|7.19.05 @ 2:30PM|#
MD-
I'd tell them that they ought to pass a law banning full-auto laser
shotguns. After all, everyone knows that only criminals and drug
dealers use full-auto laser shotguns.
|7.19.05 @ 2:33PM|#
blammo, that sounds terribly reasonable. I'll be happy to debate legalizing anti-aircraft cannons once people stop passing laws that result in a 20-year jail sentence because the barrel of their shotgun was 1/4 an inch too short.
|7.19.05 @ 2:34PM|#
Stretch,
Forget the potential for tyranny, removing our guns *IS* tyranny.
So is it our moral duty to shoot the confiscators?
|7.19.05 @ 2:35PM|#
"Gee, perhaps if they'd actually listen to all of those crazy,
gun-toting neanderthal wifebeaters they'd learn a thing or
two."
Gee, perhaps if the gun rights movement didn't deliberately put
crazy, gun-toting neanderthan wifebeaters in front of the cameras
in order to provoke a culture war for their buddies, they'd find
more people willing to listen.
|7.19.05 @ 2:39PM|#
'Define "particularly dangerous."'
Like everything else, there are easy cases at the extremes, and a
difficult grey area in the middle.
Assault and battery statutes are full of "serious bodily harm"-type
language that requires a judgement call, too. So what?
|7.19.05 @ 2:40PM|#
joe- The gun rights movement didn't provoke the culture war. The
statists did. The NRA has fought a purely defensive battle from the
first time it was backed into having to defend an entire American
sub-culture.
The NRA/GOA are probably the only lobbiest groups in DC whose sole
purpose is to get the .gov to leave their members alone.
|7.19.05 @ 2:43PM|#
Yeah, that's what I thought. I called your bluff.
So what's your point? The statistics on the effectiveness of gun
control are dubious at best. Perhaps the best method would be to
punish those who victimize innocent people?
Nah.
|7.19.05 @ 2:46PM|#
Is anybody really worried about the gun rights movement? I know
there are alot of stupid laws on the books, but come on, in most
places you can legally purchase a deadly firearm with a minimum of
fuss. God bless this country.
We should spend more time focusing on the getting-high rights
movement.
|7.19.05 @ 2:46PM|#
joe hits on a sad truth of modern politics. With all issues held
by one of two parties, each party seeks to motivate broad
coalitional support for each of the planks in its platform. Ergo,
we get a cultural war appeal for the right of self defense that is
deliberately conflated with other completely unrelated coalitional
concerns to make it appear that 'this stuff is all related'. I
noted a similar gimmick the other day on the Sierra Club's
endorsement of the new Ford. Not just saving the environment, but
appealing to labor and xenophobia.
You will not find a more strident self defense advocate than me,
but the apparent necessity of the approach depresses me. It is
similar to that feeling that 99% of gun owners get when they go to
a show and see the inevitable nazi table. Shut up and get off my
side is a good argument in the case of nazis, but is really not
employable against any significant voting bloc. Sigh.
|7.19.05 @ 2:49PM|#
blammo:
I don't think I can express how much the gun movement owes the
current state of affairs to GW Bush's win against Gore. Bush has
been outstanding on that particular issue, and it is only because
of Bush that the federal ban expired. I never thought that one
would be allowed to die. Whatever else happens, he gets credit for
that.
|7.19.05 @ 2:51PM|#
Like everything else, there are easy cases at the extremes,
and a difficult grey area in the middle.
Not terribly. One of the biggest logical fallacy of the gun-control
movement is an attempt to differentiate between "good" guns and
"bad" guns. There's never any thought given to the idea that maybe,
just maybe the good or evil of a particular arm is totally
dependant upon the person wielding it. It's simply assumed that
good people should not be allowed to have "bad" guns.
Assault and battery statutes are full of "serious bodily
harm"-type language that requires a judgement call, too. So
what?
Ok, here's a "so what" for you. Several years ago when California
enacted a ban on "assault weapons" they so broadly defined the term
that the Olympic style target pistols were rendered illegal. State
congressman Don Perata's response to an inquiry from Olympic
hopeful Lauren Santibanez was "So what, move to Texas."
|7.19.05 @ 2:52PM|#
They are all muttering about the .50 again, by the way. I saw a 60 minutes piece a couple of days ago wherin someone actually referred to a Barrett as a 'terrorist rifle'. Oh, goody. A new made up designation to go alongside 'assault weapon'. I suppose 'we know them when we see them', too. Puke.
|7.19.05 @ 2:56PM|#
mediageek,
No, YOU started it...
No, YOU did...
Yawn.
"There's never any thought given to the idea that maybe, just maybe
the good or evil of a particular arm is totally dependant upon the
person wielding it." So you're ok with private ownership of four
barrel antiaircraft canons that fire explosive 20 mm shells? Ah,
well, I didn't mean THAT...so now we're back to line drawing.
|7.19.05 @ 2:59PM|#
We should spend more time focusing on the getting-high
rights movement.
The war on drugs and the war on guns are as intimately connected as
a pair of conjoined twins. The sooner everyone realizes this, the
better off we'll be.
Jason-
Disagree. Bush is lukewarm on guns. His stated stance on renewing
the AWB was that if it reached his desk, he would sign it into law.
The renewal of the ban was killed in the House and Senate.
Feinstein reintroduced a renewal of that bill something like eight
times in the year or so leading up to the expiration.
|7.19.05 @ 3:01PM|#
Mediageek,
Most gun-control advocates feel that unweildly hunting rifles and
shotguns should remain legal, as a nod to American
cultural/recreational legacy (not to mention that many of these
nitwits like to hunt: http://tinyurl.com/7gmno).
It's gun-control advocates' denial that guns also serve the
purposes of self-defense that brings weapons designed for this
purpose the "bad" label, including virtually all handguns and many
short-stock rifles.
"Good" weapons are weapons that can't be used effectively for self
defense.
|7.19.05 @ 3:03PM|#
So you're ok with private ownership of four barrel
antiaircraft canons that fire explosive 20 mm shells? Ah, well, I
didn't mean THAT...so now we're back to line drawing.
Joe, I already addressed this. You're attempting to force me to
respond to a reductio ad absurdum.
|7.19.05 @ 3:06PM|#
mediageek, you "already addressed it" by stating that you refuse to discuss the issue. Who taught you logic, Ari Fleischer?
|7.19.05 @ 3:09PM|#
well joe, in all fairness, i don't think legislation concerning private antiaircraft guns is on the table.
|7.19.05 @ 3:09PM|#
Why don't we ban people who favor gun control? I'm sure we could send them somewhere like China, where gun control is in full effect...
|7.19.05 @ 3:13PM|#
mediageek:
An argument can be made that I am being overly generous to the
administration here, but I believe they did EXACTLY what they had
to do to ensure the expiration of the awb. It is strategically
better to diffuse the negative press coverage by making two large
deliberative bodies responsible for the outcome of a sunset.
Remember, all you have to do is delay, and who is better at that
than the House and Senate? I think that an open advocacy position
with the president's face on it would have hurt rather than helped.
No lightning rod was a better approach. Dems were scared to fight
hard and take it to the papers after the shellacking they took in
Gore v Bush on the issue. To me, Bush gets credit.
|7.19.05 @ 3:14PM|#
"There's never any thought given to the idea that maybe, just
maybe the good or evil of a particular arm is totally dependant
upon the person wielding it."
Be careful what you wish for. That's a superbly logical argument
for a complete ban of guns in non-government hands, as it is for
nuclear weapons and the like. Because there's no way to tell ahead
of time whether the person wanting the gun is Mr. Rogers or Dylan
Harris, after all.
|7.19.05 @ 3:16PM|#
mediageek,
No, YOU started it...
No, YOU did...
Yawn.
Joe, my intention isn't to engage in fingerpointing, but the
historical record, starting with gun-related Jim Crow laws,
progressing to the National Firearms Act of 1934, up through the
Gun Control Act of 1968, to the "Assault Weapon" Ban of 1994 proves
my point. Had people like Homer Stille Cumming chosen not to pick
up a stick and jab it into a hornet's nest, we most likely wouldn't
be having this conversation.
|7.19.05 @ 3:16PM|#
Gee, perhaps if the gun rights movement didn't deliberately
put crazy, gun-toting neanderthan wifebeaters in front of the
cameras in order to provoke a culture war for their buddies, they'd
find more people willing to listen.
come on joe. it's not as if there's a group of guys smoking cigars
in a dark room deciding what The Gun Rights Movement is going to do
next. like any political movement, it has members that are a bit
crazy and very vocal about it, and are no more under my control
than militant communists are under yours.
|7.19.05 @ 3:21PM|#
MD-
But that boils down to a very basic epistemological argument with
regard to whether the government should enforce laws that prohibit
crimes that are malum in se or malum prohibitum.
If a person's beliefs are primarily Utilitarian in nature, and they
have no problems with malum prohibitum, then I may as well be
speaking Klingon.
|7.19.05 @ 3:23PM|#
I agree with Jason Ligon on Bush's handling of the AWB
expiration. Saying "I'll sign an extension if it reaches my desk"
is like saying, "God, I won't sleep with that prostitute if you
send me a sign in the next five seconds." As if Tom Delay and Bill
Frist were going to allow such a bill to reach his desk!
mediageek, you actually want me to believe that the Jim Crow gun
bans of the 1870s were part of the effete coastal elites' efforts
to keep down Real Americans in the Heartland? That, in the middle
of Al Capone's careet, banning the private ownership of Thompson
submachine guns was part of a culture war waged by cosmopolital
elites? That the gun bans that came about in the aftermath of the
Kennedy, X, and King assassinations were actually about hostility
towards people who drive pickup trucks?
Your grievance knows no bounds.
|7.19.05 @ 3:25PM|#
People make too much of the line drawing argument. The line is
demonstrable, and by that I mean statistically significant and
measurable, public harm.
The weapon that is engineered for self defence is not the weapon
that creates significant public harm. A weapon that puts a single
projectile into a single target is not any more a public hazard
than a hunting rifle. Yes, .50 BMG is a huge round. Guess what?
.460 Wby is a huge round, too.
A PIVAD AAA system is not a weapon of self defence, and its
employment has a greater than reasonable chance of harming
bystanders. Ditto high explosives, bio agents, and so forth.
A final standard would be that if a cop can have it, so can I.
|7.19.05 @ 3:26PM|#
zach, "come on joe. it's not as if there's a group of guys
smoking cigars in a dark room deciding what The Gun Rights Movement
is going to do next. like any political movement, it has members
that are a bit crazy and very vocal about it, and are no more under
my control than militant communists are under yours."
The National Rifle Association is not the equivalent of militant
communists. They are considered a very mainstream group, and they
chose to make Wayne LaPierre their president, and let him rant on
about jackbooted federal thugs, at the same time that Newt Gingrich
was whipping up hatred of all things federal on the part of red
staters as part of his program to gain Republican majorities in
Congress.
|7.19.05 @ 3:27PM|#
Take 1: "You guys are just paranoid" "But your folks have
said they're out to take our guns..." "...Um, and your
spokesmen are shit-kickers!"
Take 2: "Look, these arbitrary lines on which small arms should be
illegal are absurd and have no relationship to anything but
political buzzwords." "Arbitrary, huh? What about artillery pieces,
huh, HUH?"
Now just to wait for some well-meaning people to explain why Joe's
ignoring any substantive points made to focus on baiting people
here isn't trolling, but braving the scary libertarian
stronghold to have honest, insightful debate with people he
disagrees with.
|7.19.05 @ 3:30PM|#
Jason,
If a guy on the ground can use it to take down an airliner, a good
case can be made that it poses "significant public harm."
Banelli (sp?) street sweepers - a drum-fed semi-automatic shotgun,
designed to cover a large area with shot in a short amount of time.
Would that meet your standard of "A weapon that puts a single
projectile into a single target?"
|7.19.05 @ 3:31PM|#
The National Rifle Association is not the equivalent of
militant communists. They are considered a very mainstream group,
and they chose to make Wayne LaPierre their president, and let him
rant on about jackbooted federal thugs, at the same time that Newt
Gingrich was whipping up hatred of all things federal on the part
of red staters as part of his program to gain Republican majorities
in Congress.
ok. i still don't have any control over them.
|7.19.05 @ 3:40PM|#
Trust me, Joe. In true libertarian fashion, you're doing all the work and reaping all the rewards...
|7.19.05 @ 3:41PM|#
Jason,
The standards for what weapons can create significant public harm
depend on the community. Therefore I think it's reasonable that
local governments develop different standards. I live in a Brooklyn
apartment building, and I don't want my arthritic 80-year-old
neighbor with cataracts to attempt to dispatch a burglar with a
fully automatic AK-47. But there are clearly situations where NYC
cops should use fully automatic weapons.
Conversely, if I lived in rural West Virginia and my nearest
neighbor was 25 miles away, I would not care if he owned a machine
gun.
|7.19.05 @ 3:45PM|#
At some point, it gets old debating the same points -- pro and
con -- for the four hundredth time.
I don't really feel like debating with gun banners much anymore.
Their side continues to lose politically, on the national level.
And my state has fairly loose gun laws.
Soon, lawsuits against gun manufacturers won't be allowed. Maybe
after that, a national concealed carry license.
After that happens, I'd love to see a Hillary administration. The
war that would ensue between Congress and the Prez would be
beautiful.
|7.19.05 @ 3:45PM|#
Like I said, Bush is lukewarm on guns. I don't bear any
animosity towards him on that, as it's simply political reality.
The renewal was a game and one he played well. I'm happy it's gone,
and unlike some, I'm not going to rant and rave about how Bush
isn't doing enough for gun rights. I know that would be a losing
game.
mediageek, you actually want me to believe that the Jim Crow
gun bans of the 1870s were part of the effete coastal elites'
efforts to keep down Real Americans in the Heartland?
No, in that case it was all about Southern thugs with a grudge and
a cultural mandate making sure that impoverished black
sharecroppers couldn't fight back when the Klan showed up.
Incidentally, so far as I know, the only Jim Crow laws still on the
books are gun control laws. For instance, shortly after the civil
war Missouri instuted a law stating that no one could buy a handgun
without having someone vouch for his "good character." This law was
originally passed to keep African Americans from possessing
defensive arms. While the law is no longer enforced this way, it's
still on the books, and you must have someone vouch for your "good
character" in order to buy a handgun.
That, in the middle of Al Capone's careet, banning the private
ownership of Thompson submachine guns was part of a culture war
waged by cosmopolital elites?
Yes and no. In much the same way that astronomically rare incidents
like the North Hollywood Bank robbery are used to whip up public
sentiment for gun control, the St. Valentine's Day Massacre was
used to push for the National Firearms Act. Remember, at the time,
a Thompson went for over $200-narly $3,000 today. Believe it or
not, aside from military and law-enforcement contracts Tommy Guns
sold very poorly.
Homer Stille Cumming, who was one of FDR's AG's was an ardent
gun-hater, and arguably the prototype for the modern-era puritan
gun prohibitionist. His original proposals included making handguns
NFA items, and registering and taxing all ammunition at $1/round or
$14.27/round in today's dollars.
hat the gun bans that came about in the aftermath of the
Kennedy, X, and King assassinations were actually about hostility
towards people who drive pickup trucks?
Again, an example of using high-profile tragedy to whip up public
sentiment for laws that certainly haven't stopped criminals from
getting guns. And I don't drive a pickup truck.
|7.19.05 @ 3:54PM|#
If a guy on the ground can use it to take down an airliner,
a good case can be made that it poses "significant public
harm."
Right. Someone is going to knock a flying aircraft out of the sky
with a single-shot rifle. Kinda makes me wonder why they had to
strap something like six belt-fed machineguns chambered for the
same round on fighter planes in WWII. You must know something that
all those designers at Northrop Grumman, Republic, and all the
other aircraft makers of the time didn't know. Oh, and if you think
.50's show some sort of inherent danger, why aren't you
vociferously calling for banning the lowly .22LR cartridge?
According to the BATFE, the .22 is used in more killings and
shootings than any other cartridge.
Banelli (sp?) street sweepers - a drum-fed semi-automatic
shotgun, designed to cover a large area with shot in a short amount
of time. Would that meet your standard of "A weapon that puts a
single projectile into a single target?"
The Street Sweeper was made by SWD, not Benelli. It didn't do
anything that a Remington 1100 with an extended mag tube wouldn't
do, except it looked a lot uglier. "bad" guns vs. "good" guns
again, joe.
|7.19.05 @ 3:57PM|#
joe:
You blaspheme! Benelli doesn't make the Street Sweeper, they make
the best autoloaders out there, not that POS. It is made by Cobray,
the same people who brought you the M10 and M11 (civilianized mac
10 and mac 11) - also pieces of poo.
It just so happens that I went to a tactical shotgun class
this weekend where a guy had street sweeper. By the second day, he
was using an instructor's old pump Remington 870 to keep up.
A) it has a 12 round clockwork thingy like a revolver and not a
detachable magazine. It is horribly slow to load and unload.
B) the deadly 'spray' effect of the minimum legal 18" barrel
shotgun is vastly overstated. The probability of you hitting more
than one person with a single blast is extremely small. To give you
an idea, the guy with the streetsweeper was putting 9 pellets of 00
buck into a pattern about 4.5" at 40 feet. With birdshot, things
open up, but your effective range against a human target is very
short.
As for the .50 taking out the airliner with a single shot ... I'm
skeptical. The shot would not be easy, and the 'over a mile' range
you hear is not a mile straight up in the air. Even with explosive
.50 cal amunition, I'm skeptical. Helos are another matter, but
they can be taken down very easily by any number of different
tools.
|7.19.05 @ 3:59PM|#
They are considered a very mainstream group, and they chose
to make Wayne LaPierre their president, and let him rant on about
jackbooted federal thugs,
And the fact that there was widespread documented evidence of BATF
abuses at the time probably had nothing to do with it, I'm
sure.
|7.19.05 @ 4:02PM|#
"But there are clearly situations where NYC cops should use
fully automatic weapons."
I don't know that I agree with this too much. Urban environments
very rarely require an officer to use burst fire, and frankly most
officers can't shoot worth a damn anyway. I'm not trying to be
arrogant here, and I am a moderate shot with a good deal of
training myself, but I've been in enough classes with officers to
have a basis for that judgement.
BTW, Your granny neighbor with the AK could buy Hornady TAP ammo
and not penetrate the walls. Might be a good Christmas present.
Ken Hagler|7.19.05 @ 4:03PM|#
Joe asked mediageek, "So you're ok with private ownership of
four barrel antiaircraft canons that fire explosive 20 mm
shells?"
I'm not mediageek, but my answer to that question would be, "Yes,
absolutely." I wouldn't buy one personally, because the ranges
around here ban any kind of ammo that might be a fire hazard, but
if you could get 20mm FMJ rounds...
|7.19.05 @ 4:03PM|#
That's another funny thing about people wanting certain weapons
banned. It's not like the Barrett .50 is so inexpensive that
everyone in your neighbourhood will own one. Same with the Benelli
semi-auto shotgun. Although I don't understand why that particular
weapon seems so sinister to joe. It's an effective weapon, yes, but
again, so is my Winchester .30-30 lever action carbine. As
effective? I'd have to say no, but I just don't see the outrage
(although I haven't had the pleasure of shooting the
Benelli).
And blammo, you may be right about different areas having different
ordinances. But outright bans? How about, it's illegal to discharge
your fully automatic AK-47 in NYC limits, but not to own one? It's
going to have the same effect on both law-abiding folks and
criminals as an outright ban.
|7.19.05 @ 4:12PM|#
Funny thing about .50's: those who own them are much more likely
on the board of directors of a bank rather than robbing one.
WRT to 20mm stuff, I'll only stop long enough to observe that until
1968 you could order a Lahti or Solothurn 20mm rifle through the
mail.
MP|7.19.05 @ 4:14PM|#
So you're ok with private ownership of four barrel
antiaircraft canons that fire explosive 20 mm shells? Ah, well, I
didn't mean THAT...so now we're back to line drawing.
OK...no. Constitutionally protected? Yes.
|7.19.05 @ 4:23PM|#
Jason, "The probability of you hitting more than one person with
a single blast is extremely small." Isn't the purpose of the
semiautomatic design and drum to allow more than one shot in quick
succession? You problably won't hit more than one person with a
single round from a BAR, either, but that doesn't make it a good
idea to allow KMart to sell them.
mediageek, the CIA and FBI have identified the threat of losing an
aircraft to a .50 caliber rifle to warrant their attention. What is
it that you know that they do not? What's that - absolutely
nothing?
Personally, I don't claim to know how serious this threat is. Let's
not allow our ideological dispositions to prejudice our judgement
of objective facts, mm-kay?
"Oh, and if you think .50's show some sort of inherent danger, why
aren't you vociferously calling for banning the lowly .22LR
cartridge? According to the BATFE, the .22 is used in more killings
and shootings than any other cartridge." Wow, what brilliant logic.
Did you know that bathtubs and staircases blah blah freakity blah.
Spare me.
"And the fact that there was widespread documented evidence of BATF
abuses at the time probably had nothing to do with it, I'm sure."
Oh, I see. It's ok for your side to enflame the culture war for its
own purposes, because your side is right, dammit!
Lowdog, how many people would actually go out and buy hand grenades
or ricin if they were legal? Very few, but that's not really the
point.
|7.19.05 @ 4:27PM|#
MP, I can respect that position - "shall not infringe means
shall not infringe, period. Put hand grenades on the shelves of
KMart" - a lot more than what I usually hear.
To wit, "Of course I don't believe people should be able to own
antiaircraft guns. What a miserable, absurd straw man that iS! Some
weapons are allowed and some weapons aren't, but if you don't draw
the categories exactly as I do, you're violating the Second
Amendment!"
|7.19.05 @ 4:29PM|#
I believe JFK and MLK were killed by rifles. Not sure what that
has to do with handgun laws.
I agree, though, that the Street Sweeper is dangerous. The
unloading process leaves a lot to be desired. Bad design.
|7.19.05 @ 4:40PM|#
Joe,
In the two years that I've been posting here, you and I/we have
continued to make basically the same augments at each other. I
don't know about you, but I'm just agreeing that we disagree on gun
control, and leaving it at that. Neither side seems to be winning
over the other.
You live in a state that seems to have gun laws you like. I live in
a state that has very few laws, which I like. In both cases, that's
not going to be changing any time soon.
That might be a case of federalism at work, but I'm not sure.
MP|7.19.05 @ 4:47PM|#
"Of course I don't believe people should be able to own
antiaircraft guns. What a miserable, absurd straw man that iS! Some
weapons are allowed and some weapons aren't, but if you don't draw
the categories exactly as I do, you're violating the Second
Amendment!"
All too common an argument. Gun rights activists likely fail to
address it because they know that the absolutist position would be
unpopular. Yet again, another example of politics trumping
principles.
Unfortunately, it is also unlikely that SCOTUS would support my
absolutist position. I'm sure they would make some sort of "public
good" argument, in the same manner that they make one regarding
campaign finance. Thus, people are also fearful that making an
absolutist case in court would allow SCOTUS to open a crack in the
foundation, thus leading down the slipperly slope to Constitutional
handgun bans.
|7.19.05 @ 4:48PM|#
Jason,
There are certainly situations where NYC cops should use fully
automatic weapons - we have highly-trained anti-terrorist task
forces, for example. But your point only goes to show that a safe
weapon in one location can be pretty hazardous to the public in
another. Local governments should pass their own laws based on the
unique attributes of their communities.
|7.19.05 @ 4:50PM|#
So, I guess in the next free-speech-related topic, we can expect Joe to argue that anyone who thinks slander, false advertising, or organizing a lynch party should be illegal is just a ideological hysteric when they argue that any law violates the first Amendment...
|7.19.05 @ 4:57PM|#
Eric, if the point of that post was to make my molars ache with
the stupidity of it all...
Mission Accomplished!
MP|7.19.05 @ 4:58PM|#
No Eric. joe makes the point that since it is not clearly spelled out in the Constitution, if one accepts the fact that certain types of arms are unconstitutional due to public safety hazards that supercede a textual reading of the Constitution, then one is engaging in line drawing. At that point, there is never a hard and fast rule regarding where to draw the line, so you're going to get a constant political push/pull. Thus, saying that the line should/should not include .50 caliber guns (or guns with large magazines, or grenades, etc. etc.) becomes a matter of opinion.
|7.19.05 @ 5:01PM|#
Oh, I see. It's ok for your side to enflame the culture war
for its own purposes, because your side is right,
dammit!
joe, that's exactly what you're doing. you have some interesting
points, but you're only making them look less honest by trying to
make our "side's" spokesmen the issue. let's try to stick to the
point.
mediageek, the CIA and FBI have identified the threat of losing
an aircraft to a .50 caliber rifle to warrant their attention. What
is it that you know that they do not? What's that - absolutely
nothing? (emphasis mine of course)
LOL... that's just about the last argument i expected to hear from
joe.
|7.19.05 @ 5:04PM|#
Eric-
Either that, or that no one needs a Heidelberg
Speedmaster 74 DI because it allows you to distribute "bad"
ideas printed on paper to far too many people.
|7.19.05 @ 5:06PM|#
if one accepts the fact that certain types of arms are
unconstitutional due to public safety hazards
I don't, but Joe is playing the fallacy of the excluded middle -
that there is no basis for any stance between "utterly unrestricted
weapon ownership, including nukes" and "'sensible', AKA incredibly
restricted weapon ownership, until we can get rid of that, to".
Considering that there's a non-negliglible amount of Constitutional
scholarship that concludes "Yeah, they meant pretty much any small
arm, even military ones, but not cannons", that's patently
dishonest.
|7.19.05 @ 5:09PM|#
Mediageek, you know very well that the First Amendment refers to the "press", that is, the professional, government-recognized media. That sort of idea-conveying firepower shouldn't be in private hands!
|7.19.05 @ 5:09PM|#
oops, i left my emphasis out.
anyway, of course no one will be allowed to own their own AAA in
the near future, so it's not really an issue. but since apparently
we're talking absolutes for the fun of it... if people were
permitted to own AAA, it might have an effect people in joe's camp
would like, namely the reduction of the military. think about it...
i wouldn't want to invade a country where half the farms and
skyscrapers were rigged with civilian AAA.
naturally, an organized military is better suited to defend a
country, but just food for thought.
|7.19.05 @ 5:11PM|#
Hate to jump in at the end here, but what is sensible, Eric? It's probably not sensible to own a Hummer with current gas prices, but people do it and society survives. Once "sensibility" becomes the standard for the constitutionality of a law, we're in trouble. I'm in the same camp as MP here. How can owning any object be a crime? It's what you do with the thing that matters.
|7.19.05 @ 5:25PM|#
also, in the mythical world that will probably never exist that
we're discussing, AAA manufacturers could always refuse to sell
their weapons to civilians out of principle. or there could be a
provision in the manufacturer's contract with the military that the
weapons aren't sold to civilians.
it is all a bit of a conundrum. the government's job is not only to
protect its people, but to maintain order of some kind. if an
individual could legally amass a private, high-tech army,
comparable to that of the government's, there would really be no
way for the government to maintain order in matters relating to
that person. in other words, if you were rich enough, you truly
would be above the law.
so anyway, at some point, everything has to come down to
"sensibility". sensibility is what decided which specific rights to
enumerate in the first place, and can't then just be abandoned
because some rules were written down. but to my own libertarian
sensibilities, people ought to be allowed to carry man-killing
automatic weapons, for the resons stated in this thread.
|7.19.05 @ 5:28PM|#
Well, if one really wanted to argue a right to own AAA,
artillery, and other stuff that could broadly be painted as
military ordnance, you could look to the section of the
Constitution that authorizes the issuance of letters of marque and
reprisal. In the day it was not unknown to issue these to
privateers who'd then go out and blow stuff up with privately owned
shipboard cannon.
*shrugs shoulders*
For what it's worth.
|7.19.05 @ 5:30PM|#
Why indeed give Congress the power to say to private citizens, "You know, if you were to go out and blow up enemy ships, that would be just super," if private citizens couldn't own weapons capable of blowing up ships?
|7.19.05 @ 5:31PM|#
I think Joe has a point that in the real world of gun debates some line drawing does have to go on. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but what does make me nervous is when a reasonable, mainstream-liberal type colleague of mine suggested where that line should be drawn by remarking, "You know, I can't really think of any situation where having a gun would NOT make things worse." There's plenty to rag on in that statement, but I'm far more frightened by it than by the fact that Joe doesn't want me living next door to him owning an anti-aircraft gun.
|7.19.05 @ 5:39PM|#
Eric, it's certainly food for thought. But joe's argument that any slight rollback in gun control will result in tanks in the street and fighter jets as lawn ornaments is, as I pointed out earlier, nothing more than a screaching chicken-little style attempt at reductio ad absurdum.
|7.19.05 @ 5:44PM|#
LisaMarie:
Sensibility is...sensible, but keep in mind that the likes of Joe
will claim you're a foaming-mouthed, pickup-driving,
UN-black-helicopter-reporting paranoid for being bothered by your
colleague's remark...
|7.19.05 @ 5:45PM|#
The second amendment protects our right to bear arms. It is silent as to ordnance or artillery, two things that existed at the time. So in making the distinction, it seems that government may bar us from having cannons, railguns, and fighter aircraft, but not rifles, handguns, stinger missiles, and suitcase nukes.
|7.19.05 @ 5:51PM|#
oops Eric, I did misread... it's the end of a long day of pretending to work. But I am still bothered by the idea of using "sensibility" as any sort of guideline for law-making. It's fine and dandy for cultural taboos (as Zach said, vendors could choose not to sell certain things) but it's a really sketchy guideline for anything binding.
|7.19.05 @ 5:52PM|#
Yes, and quite frankly I got tired of positing logical arguments to
a brick wall last year.
There aren't going to be any 50BMG bans on the national level, and
for all I care, Massachusetts can ban BB guns. We seem to be living
in two different worlds.
|7.19.05 @ 5:53PM|#
Mm, laws should be sensible, as should law enforcement. But they should protect our rights, not violate them.
|7.19.05 @ 5:55PM|#
Ack, tabbed out... Append to the above "It's just that 'sensible' often gets used as a codeword for 'my support of curtailing your rights'."
|7.19.05 @ 5:55PM|#
Incidentally, I'd like to float an idea for some of you that
aren't into guns:
How would you feel about repealing many of the restrictions on
sound suppressors (silencers)?
My proposal would deregulate them as NFA items (Highly restricted
by the feds) and instead move them to the same category as
handguns- you'd still have to fill a form out to buy one, but
they'd be available at Ye Olde Gonne Shoppe.
There are a couple of reasons for this:
1)When suppressors were originally regulated, there was zero
medical understanding with regard to cumulative hearing
damage.
2)Many modern shooting clubs are having problems with urban sprawl,
and their new neighbors are upset at the noise. Deregulating
suppressors so people could shoot more quietly seems like it would
go a long way to alleviating some of this animosity.
Also, many European nations, most notably France, Great Britain,
the Scandanavian region, and others require hunters and target
shooters to use suppressors simply because it's good manners.
Thoughts?
|7.19.05 @ 6:01PM|#
joe:
From very recent exercise:
Three rounds from a pump action shotgun hitting three separate
steel targets 6 ft. apart.
A consensus 'good time' for a trained operator is 1 sec for with a
Benelli semi auto.
For an operator of a Rem 870 pump - 1.5 sec.
It is extremely difficult for an adult male to keep more than 3
rounds on target at anything approaching that rate of fire. If you
meet a guy who can dump all 12 shells, assuming they are defense
loads, from the magazine of a street sweeper at targets that fast,
don't worry about the shotgun. That guy can A) take a beating
himself (did I mention the all steel folding stock with no
buttpad?) and B) could probably bench press your house.
I'll be honest. I sold my old Benelli M3 and have a Benelli M2 on
order. Shotguns are devastating weapons in close quarters,
primarily because they do horrific damage to the guy trying to stab
you. Everyone should do this exercise at some point:
Stand with a holstered airsoft gun facing a guy with a rubber knife
11 yards away (compare that to the longest distance someone will be
from you inside your own home). The knife guy rushes you and starts
cutting. "all you have to do" is shoot him twice and get hits on
his center of mass. Let me know how that works out for you.
Pistol holders get rushed all the time, but somehow no one wants to
rush the guy with the Benelli. It finishes the fight right now. I
would never suggest that a shotgun is not dangerous, but I take
issue with the suggestion that it is somehow uniquely dangerous to
the public.
|7.19.05 @ 6:02PM|#
mediageek,
I wholeheartedly agree. But suppressors are firmly in the MS media
"evil" category.
It'd be a hard one to repeal. But feel free to start a
petittion.
|7.19.05 @ 6:13PM|#
Jason,
Shotguns make wonderful defensive weapons for sheer power, but when
practicing corner drills, and other tactical maneuvers, it becomes
apparent they have some drawbacks.
|7.19.05 @ 6:17PM|#
joe:
"You problably won't hit more than one person with a single round
from a BAR, either, but that doesn't make it a good idea to allow
KMart to sell them."
You may have missed my point here. The public danger is not that
someone might choose to shoot several people. I don't acknowledge
that as a necessary and sufficient condition for public harm,
because someone might need to shoot several people or one person
multiple times in rapid succession. One myth that really needs to
be put to bed is the Hollywood vision of a single bullet stopping a
threat most of the time. Nope. There is no shoot to wound, either.
There is only justified lethal force or not justified lethal force.
Using half assed lethal force is a good way to get dead.
My point with the shotgun is that if you are shooting at one
person, you will hit one person in most scenarios. Not so the
grenade. I have no problem with Kmart selling semi auto BARs. I'm
willing to listen to the notion that a fully auto BAR should
require a tax stamp and licence (as is currently the case) on the
grounds that a fully auto rifle has the potential to do public
harm, though not the near certainty of an explosive. I see no
reason for legal prohibition of new fully auto BARs to sell to the
licenced crowd. It is just hard to justify based on any objective
criteria. That is the whole point to me. To make something illegal,
you need a specific public harm justification and some evidence to
go along with it.
MP|7.19.05 @ 6:19PM|#
It is silent as to ordnance or artillery, two things that
existed at the time.
It is also silent on ammunition. From what source did you get a
definition of "arms" that means anything beyond "weapons"? The
current American Heritage dictionary states
(emphasis in original):
A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs,
bombs, and other nuclear arms.
Now, of course the dictionary of the time didn't include ICBMs in
the definition, but I'm skeptical that it was worded such that it
excluded ordnance or artillery.
|7.19.05 @ 6:22PM|#
kmw:
Yes, mine is relegated to the static defence of 'the last room' -
my bedroom. Come through that door, and you are mine.
Cornering with anything larger than a pistol is very tough in most
modern houses. The guys at TDI are all on SWAT teams themselves and
train other SWAT teams for a living, and they tell me over and over
that the pistol is the worst thing to have in a fight but the most
likely tool you will be able to get there. Their 5 man teams often
have 3 and sometimes 4 pistol guys, with only one shotgun or
carbine. It is a real shame that most military personnel in Iraq
can't shoot pistols worth a damn.
|7.19.05 @ 6:27PM|#
mediageek - can you point me to the gun-related website you said
you mod? I'm trying to figure out what I need to go through to
purchase an automatic weapon. Seriously.
Jason - nice on the M2...just lookin' at their site, and those look
wicked. Oops, now they'll get banned...bad gun! :)
|7.19.05 @ 7:43PM|#
"Gee, perhaps if they'd actually listen to all of those crazy,
gun-toting neanderthal wifebeaters they'd learn a thing or
two."
"Gee, perhaps if the gun rights movement didn't deliberately put
crazy, gun-toting neanderthan wifebeaters in front of the cameras
in order to provoke a culture war for their buddies, they'd find
more people willing to listen."
"It is similar to that feeling that 99% of gun owners get when they
go to a show and see the inevitable nazi table. Shut up and get off
my side is a good argument in the case of nazis, but is really not
employable against any significant voting bloc. Sigh."
NOW we're talking! Why is it that they almost ALWAYS interview the
dumbest guys they can find for each side? They get the unreasonable
gun-phobic nut-jobs on one side and the rabid gun-nuts on the other
side. Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that most coverage
is intended to be sensational attention-getters rather than inform
folks about their policy choices, I'm sure. I weep for the state of
the 4th Estate.
joe never seems to get tired of arguing gun rights, but hey,
neither do the rest of us, apparently! (My personal opinion is that
joe just LOVES the attention...)
|7.19.05 @ 8:52PM|#
Most people in Amurika have a two car garage.
How big a garage will they have when Chelsea Clinton runs for
President promising a nuke in every garage, plus a lifetime supply
of mind-altering drugs?
I'm guessing at least a three-car, since Mormans will still need
room for can goods, water, and whatnot.
A chicken in every pot seems so quaint now, doesn't it? Chelsea's
slogan will be, "some pot in every chick, and, oh yeah, guys can
get some too. Tee hee."
|7.19.05 @ 9:43PM|#
mediageek: I love the Heidelberg reference. "Black powder"
mimeographs are dangerous, too.
Which leads me to another dimension in the private ack-ack debate.
Only the rich can afford the stuff. Even common rifle ammo makes
for an expensive hobby. Maybe Lex Luthor or Richard Branson could
have personal AAA, but one is fictional and the other one doesn't
seem bent on destruction. (But imagine your Virgin Atlantic flight
escorted by F-5s in corporate colors...oooh)
Jason: I wonder if licensing is an infringement on the right to
keep and bear? It might not be, if anyone can get a license. Or
perhaps the exchange a citizen makes for bearing arms is a duty to
cooperate in a well-regulated militia...? Something like, I could
restore and own a vintage Flak 36 as long as I agreed to put it to
use under the orders of the National Guard when asked.
David Rollins|7.19.05 @ 10:51PM|#
On a somewhat related topic, can someone recommend a decent second shotgun? I have a beretta automatic for skeet / home defense. I don't want a double barrel as I feel it will limit me for home defense. If I get a pump action for trap or sporting clays, will I be able to reload without bringing the gun from shooting position?
|7.20.05 @ 12:32AM|#
mediageek - can you point me to the gun-related website you
said you mod? I'm trying to figure out what I need to go through to
purchase an automatic weapon. Seriously.
Lowdog-
I mod over at The High
Road though under a different user name.
Another good resource is The
Firing Line Both websites have a number of NFA Title II gun
owners who will be able to help you out.
|7.20.05 @ 12:35AM|#
David- I recently shot a Sportsman's Team Challenge with a
pump-action Benelli Nova.
Effing sucked. Everyone, and I mean everyone else on the
line was running either a semi auto or an O/U. Reloading a pump
without bringing it down from your shoulder can be done, but it's
much more of a challenge.
|7.20.05 @ 12:38AM|#
David,
The problem with any pump is that you don't know its empty unless
you round count or click on an empty chamber. You can reload from
full ready (gun high and on the shoulder) or low ready by cycling
the slide to the open position, tossing a round directly into the
chamber, and sliding the thing closed. If you still have time, you
can start feeding the magazine from the bottom.
I'm not a sporting clays kinda guy, but I can say that the
requirements are different than what you'd want for home defense.
For a defense gun, you want as close to 18" as you can get and as
light as possible so you can accomplish the on target reload
described above while holding onto the thing with only one hand.
Remington 11-87 semis are NOT reliable and they are too heavy.
Mossberg pumps are cheaply made. The Italians make good guns.
Benelli's M2 series can be bought in a defense model and a spiffy
recoil absorbing stock with gel pads. It is really nice. Franchi
makes the 612 in a defense model, if you can find one. Those are
very nice as well. If you want a pump, the Rem 870 is tough to
beat. Stay clear of the straight black finish from Remington. It is
rust o' rific.
In other news for the interested, we got to sample a ton of
different loads. Hornady TAP 8 pellet 00 buck is an amazing round.
For the shooters out there, I saw a Mossberg, an 870, and a Benelli
all put the 8 pellets in a single ragged hole at 35 feet. That is a
hell of a pattern with cylinder choke.
|7.20.05 @ 9:46AM|#
No, Eric, I'm arguing exactly the opposite of that - that it is
possible to draw reasonable lines - and tweaking those who argue
the opposite.
Read harder.
You too, mediageek. I brought up the AAA example to demonstrate
that, yes, you can produce reasonable limits without disarming the
populace - that it's a matter of line drawing.
|7.20.05 @ 9:56AM|#
Jason Ligon,
"Three rounds from a pump action shotgun hitting three separate
steel targets 6 ft. apart."
The semiautomatic shotgun wasn't developed to shoot three
individuals. It was developed to fire into crowds.
That's the scenario I'm concerned about - the guy who walks into a
crowded with the intention of killing as many people as he can
before he's stopped. The situation in which people are packed so
tightly that you can't miss, and therefore you can use you weapon
at its highest rate of fire. I think it's prudent to limit the
ownership of weapons on this basis, and that (and not its
usefulness in a military scenario of defending ground) is why I
support the limits on owning fully-automatic weapons.
But he, I'm just trolling, you know?
|7.20.05 @ 11:20AM|#
"The semiautomatic shotgun wasn't developed to shoot three
individuals. It was developed to fire into crowds."
You are just wrong on this. If we were talking about a sawed off
shotgun with a 3" barrel, yes, such a critter is designed to be an
area effect weapon. I don't even know what someone would hope to be
accomplishing with a semi auto shotgun firing into crowds. As I
indicated, the three round firing time by a trained user is .5
seconds ish different between a semi auto and a pump. That .5
seconds is a long time when trying to stop multiple targets that
are trying to kill you, but it means almost nothing in the context
of whatever purpose you are imagining (killing random people in a
crowd?)
|7.20.05 @ 11:34AM|#
mediageek, doesn't a suppressor somewhat affect the accuracy of
a rifle anyway? (i know next to nothing about guns.)
Most people in Amurika have a two car garage.
really? well shit. i feel so substandard.
|7.20.05 @ 1:04PM|#
Joe sez:
Damnit Joe, I'm trying to avoid getting into this, but when you go
blaspheming, I just have to speak up.
John Moses Browning invented the semi-auto shotgun in the 1890s. He
did so to enable hunters to better bag their duck quarry. Do your
fucking research before you go speaking out of your ass.
|7.20.05 @ 3:13PM|#
The semiautomatic shotgun wasn't developed to shoot three
individuals. It was developed to fire into crowds.
And with this statement joe just proves he hasn't the slightest
clue as to what he's talking about.
The Browning Auto 5 was the first semi-automatic shotgun to go into
production. It was invented by John Moses Browning as a sporting
gun for bird hunting and clay shooting.
Joe, you're vaguely respectable as a leftist who seems to be at
least somewhat capable of using logic, but everytime you open your
mouth about guns, you just make yourself look like a dumbass.
For the sake of your own pride, stop yammering about anything even
marginally related to firearms development or technology.
|7.20.05 @ 3:18PM|#
You too, mediageek. I brought up the AAA example to
demonstrate that, yes, you can produce reasonable limits without
disarming the populace - that it's a matter of line
drawing.
Yes, except that I can rationally argue that the line can be drawn
to include nearly any and all small arms, from .17 HMR to .50 BMG
target rifles.
You, on the other hand, have the technical firearms knowledge of a
box of Chinese take-out, so everytime you try to talk about drawing
a line, you make yourself look like a shmuck.
|7.20.05 @ 4:05PM|#
MG - The best part, tho, is when joe starts talking about how
badly we need experts to tell us how how our rights should be
divided up.
Eminent domain, gun control, it's all a question of where the line
should be drawn - by experts in city planning and firearms.
Y'know... like joe!
I usually argue that you don't need an expert to NOT write laws
that infringe on the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
But on this ONE occassion, since joe has proven hiimself not to be
"the expert" I will hypocritically agree that only an expert's
opinion matters! Heh...
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245