The problem, as I see it, with the gun debate is that it's rarely about not letting that "100 pound woman" have the right to carry a gun but it's about how that 100 pound woman has a constitutional right to carry an assault rifle, or how that "75 year old retiree" shouldn't have to have a background check or a waiting period prior to purchase or how that "single guy" should have the right to sell or traffic his gun to whom he wants any time he wants. There are sensible people fighting for sensible legislation but huge money interests/gun lobby will not allow it.. Most rational people aren't pro/anti gun but rather pro-responsible legislation.The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats.
I remember a long time ago watching Bowling for Columbine, I believe one of the fathers of the Columbine shooters was speaking at a rally, and said something to the effect of "You do not need a machine-gun to hunt deer." That quote always stuck with me. And I've said on Hubski before, the thing that always got me was that the people who really want guns and the people who might actually need them are not on the same venn diagram, in that the people who really want guns to protect themselves from some invisible sinister force that I don't think I've ever seen before.
And to be fair: there are a lot of gun aficionados who are perfectly harmless, who are responsible citizens, and who will go through their entire lives without so much as knowing someone who fired a gun in anger. Here's my fundamental problem with gun control: I'm of the opinion that those who talk about "what the framers meant" are performing the same style of divination as those who interpret the bible. The Constitution was supposed to be a living document and state-of-the-art weaponry in 1786 extended to but didn't quite encompass "rockets red glare" (Congreve rockets weren't developed until 1804). Rifles were another 20 years away. And while you can kill a mofo with a black powder musket, no doubt, its efficacy isn't too much greater than a longbow. The arms available for bearing were a little different back then. On the flip side, "being necessary to the security of a free state" pretty much says "for purposes of throwing off the yoke of tyranny." THAT is where the gun nuts have a point: when the army and the citizenry are comparably armed, the army is less likely to enslave the citizenry. That's where the militia movements come from - the Montana Freemen, the Branch Davidians, etc. When the Black Helicopters follow the secret NATO signs to throw you into FEMA concentration camps, you'll be glad these fine upstanding citizens are there to protect your liberties. Theoretically. In practice it's all bunk, in practice the armed forces have A-10s and shit, in practice the Preppers don't give the first fuck about your liberties so long as they get to practice their "stand your ground" defense. BUT the kernel of truth is there: the 2nd amendment deals primarily with the needs of the people to protect themselves against organized aggression and a well-armed citizenry is ruled by consent, not by decree. So in theory, there ought to be a way to keep the crazy, the megalomaniacal, the unhinged and the unsafe from Ruby Ridging us all to death. But in theory, that's exactly what they WANT you to think because hey - the Soviets and the Nazis both called political enemies "crazy" and threw them in asylums/gas chambers. So I get where they're coming from. You need a "well-regulated militia" whose regulation cannot be co-opted by any tyrannical force intent on neutralizing their effectiveness. The organizing force behind that "well-regulated militia" would operate under the same aegis as the NRA. They'd probably say a lot of the same things. They'd probably counterbalance gun control exactly the same way. So here we are.A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Quite. Lost in this discussion is the licensing/training angle because the minute you bring it up, the 2nd amendment gets thrown in your face (the "well-regulated militia" aspect gleefully ignored). In a rational universe, we'd recognize that if personal liberty and self-defense were the goal, owners of guns would be trained up and recorded ("well regulated militia") as well as organized ("necessary to the security of a free state"). And despite the fact that the 2nd amendment was created before we had a standing army. a "militia" would follow any rational civil defense model. The fact that we totally infringe the right of felons to own guns shows that some things aren't inviolate. Legally speaking, you need a license to operate walkie talkies you buy at Radio Shack. You need a license to cut hair. You need a license to fish for trout. But somehow a license for a handgun is a bridge too far.
Sensible legislation already exists. Before anyone in the U.S. can purchase any firearm, in any state, they must undergo a full background check. You cannot buy a firearm if you: Have been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
When it comes to handguns, almost every state has requirements for carrying pistols, which often include requirements for training, supervised range time, and, yes, more background checks. When people start wringing their hands about needing more legislation to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people, I immediately know that they're just spouting bullshit and don't have a clue what they are talking about. We already have sensible legislation. What we don't fucking have is adequate care for our mentally ill. We also don't have a society that has any resemblance of economic parity, and one that demonizes 50% of its population for being the wrong gender. Gun control is just a shibboleth. The real key to dealing with gun violence is not the guns, but the underlying mechanisms leading to their misuse.
I repeat: This is a national requirement, not state. Most states impose their own, additional conditions; in my case, simply to purchase ammunition for hunting, I had to pass a secondary background check and pass two courses, one involving hunting and one on gun safety. Are under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
Are a fugitive from justice;
Are an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
Have been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
Are illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
Have been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
Are subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner;
Have been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Dude. At the ripe old age of 16 I responded to a Craigslist ad, drove to a trailer park, handed over $39 and purchased a new-in-cosmoline Norinco SKS. $60 and a quick drive to the surplus store later and I had a 30-round mag and 1400 rounds of armor-piercing ammunition. Sixteen. Somewhere in a safe in a trailer park in a cul-de-sac in the middle of the desert of northern New Mexico, there's a form where I lied about my age to a dude selling assault rifles through the little nickel. 
You'll get no argument from me in regards to us having a shameful mental health system in the US. -Vastly underfunded and systematically whittled away to nothing in regards to care/hospitalization. I wonder, in another post @swedishbadgegirl@ pointed out gun/gun violence statistics in Sweden vs the US and it was night and day. Is this because Sweden has both less guns and better mental health care/screening? Also, you respond to the "waiting period" aspect but not to the types of guns comment. Do we need more than simple hand-guns/rifles/shotguns etc? If so, why?
Because the difference is purely cosmetic. Nobody is arguing for unrestrained possession of automatic weapons -- aka "machine guns." And the difference between your basic hunting rifle and what people refer to as "assault rifles" is simply a difference in stock, sight and magazine. Imma gonna hold my nose and, as much as I hate to, link to Fox News. Because even a broken clock is right sometimes, and this is one of Fox's moments: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/16/gun-debate-what-makes-gun-assault-rifle/
If the difference is "purely cosmetic" why is it that nearly every state limits magazine capacity to five if you're hunting? Ever ripped through a 30-round mag with an AR-15? I have. It's hella faster than ripping through three ten-round mags. And that's when you give a shit about what you're shooting at, not doing the dumb-ass Rambo trigger finger trick. Peruse the North Hollywood Shootout for other "cosmetic" differences; those "cosmetic" differences are why the cops in my 'hood sport S&W 40s and Benelli M4s and AR-15s and body armor. So now, when somebody gets pulled over by the airport, they're covered by the same amount of firepower and the same attitude as Marine Recon in Baghdad. Which is hardly "cosmetic."The patrol officers were armed with standard Beretta 92F and Beretta 92FS 9mm pistols and Smith & Wesson Model 15 .38 caliber revolvers, while officers including James Zaboravan also carried a 12-gauge Ithaca Model 37 pump-action shotgun. The officers' weaponry could not penetrate aramid body armor worn by Phillips and Mătăsăreanu, which covered most of their bodies and provided more bullet resistance than standard-issue police Kevlar vests. The robbers' heads were the only vital organs that were unprotected, but most of the LAPD officers' service pistols had insufficient range and relatively poor accuracy. Additionally, the officers were pinned down by the heavy spray of gunfire coming from the robbers, making it difficult to attempt a headshot.
I'm from a country with very strict gun laws and here the notion of pro-gun doesn't really exist. Here guns are used exclusively for hunting, or shooting as a sport, but in the latter case the clubs usually have guns that you use when you shoot on a range and the only reason to have your own gun is if you're seriously good at it. the notion of using guns for self-defense seems ridiculous here. We don't really have that as a wide-spread opinion or even one that would be taken seriously. And I, as a not quite 100 pound, but not tall and imposing either that everyone having guns for defense is far worse than no-one having it. I don't think it puts people on even footing, the woman is still going to feel scared of the mugger and a single guy isn't going to be able to fend of a carload of people by himself even with a gun. I think that the idea with that being equal footing would be if the gun was used as some sort of diffuser, making the violent people back away but I don't think it would work like that. I think introducing a gun would ramp it up, because suddenly the mugger is fighting for his life and not possessions. there is no guarantee that the woman won't shoot you if you just stand still or back of so why not try to gain the upper hand? I don't think a gun would truly make it equal or save anyone life. And the whole argument ledges on you thinking that anyone, and then for it to be fair everyone, should have the right to potentially kill people. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/sweden her is some data on gun policy in the US and sweden. http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Sweden/United-States/Crime and here is some data about crime. If you look at this it doesn't seem like guns minimize violence and I really don't buy this argument.
The net result of advancing technology is ever-increasing energy densities. Whether that is chemical energy, electrical energy, or mechanical, is almost irrelevant, because we can convert between the three (with loss I'll admit) rather easily. In my mind, a gun is just another method of force-multiplication. A guy with an AR-15 has a lot more applicable force than a guy, or several guys, with knives, spears, crushing implements, etc. But then, so does a guy with a bomb in his backpack. So does a guy with a tank of homemade mustard gas and a sprayer. It's completely legal to own all sorts of things that can cause death to large numbers of other humans. Mass quantities of petroleum, gunpowder, etc. Chemicals that, while innocuous in isolation, become deadly in mixture (Bleach + Ammonia = Mustard Gas) I mean, for petes sakes, we drive CARS. A few tons of metal and plastic, fueled by an immensely dangerous and expensive petroleum distillate that doesn't even require open flame to ignite. A 16 year old is allowed behind the wheel by themselves, and could INSTANTANEOUSLY end the lives of a whole ton of people as quickly and easily as a dedicated 'holy warrior/freedom fighter/terrorist/insurgent/whatever word we're using now.'
Looking to the super far future (Or maybe not so far, depending on who you read) there will come a day where most of our species will have the ability (Not the motivation, but the ability) to end the lives of most of the rest of the species. These people exist now (The guys with keys to nukes and weaponized diseases mostly) and the number of them has never been higher in human history. And you know what? That number will ONLY GET BIGGER. All as a natural result of increasing energy densities. In my opinion the question that we should be addressing, is how do you catch a person with violent anti-social tendencies before they can manifest that violence, rather than worrying about playing whack-a-mole with different modes of violence that can be circumvented legally anyway.
Yes you can kill people in lots of ways, but is that what happen?. There were over 11,000 gun deaths in the US in 2013. There were about 300 vehicular homicides in the same period. (link). People don't use cars to murder people nearly as often. It is interesting that there are more requirements for car ownership than gun ownership! It is a complicated issue. Here's a good article on the science comparing guns and crime in various countries. Some countries do well (Scandanavia for example). Some do very poorly (like Russia). It's a combination of laws and socioeconomics. In Norway, to own a gun you must document a need for a gun. Usually this is hunting or sports. Almost certainly not for self-defense unless you are a trained guard. You must obtain a license, which requires at least 9 hours training and a written test, at least 6 month membership and active participation in a gun club and afterwards a letter of recommendation from the club president. There's lots of other laws and restrictions, but I find this gun club requirement part of the law fascinating. It guarantees that a gun owner has been a part of a social gun group and understands what is considered proper behavior by peers and society. Compare to the US where Joe the Disgruntled can wake up one day and decide to go to a gun show and come home with a shiny new problem-solver. As far as energy density goes as you say, this is interesting also! What is clear is that some weapons are universally legal (fists, ballpoint pens) and some are not (tanks, missiles). In between is an entire spectrum of weaponry, and a line must be drawn somewhere. A lot of debate is on where that line should be. I don't buy the reasoning that moving the line towards higher energy density weaponry makes anyone safer. What about when the day comes when everyone has the power to kill anyone else just by thinking about it?
I've been wondering about this for months. There will come a time in the not-so-distant future where an extremely high percentage of the population will have the ability to kill most if not all of the rest of population. I can't see any way to deal with this except the following. Theoretically, once we get self-sustaining off-planet populations the existential risk is reduced by a massive amount. I see this weird pseudo-utopia as a possibility where families live miles and miles apart, on self-sufficient homesteads, kids and most adults telecommute to work or school, and travel only for social, or entertainment purposes. Have some communal areas, and cities will still probably exist in some form, but keep the vast majority of the population distributed, and hopefully, in a happy fashion.What about when the day comes when everyone has the power to kill anyone else just by thinking about it?
Boy, do I hate this. I won't go into all the ways I hate it because I don't think the issue in its presented format even merits that much serious discussion, but I will raise what I consider the most salient response: the author assumes, or else expects us to assume, that force and reason always go hand-in-hand. That if you have a gun and I have a gun, we'll resort to reasonable exchange of ideas because there's no other choice. Problem: reason and sound judgment are not prerequisites to gun ownership. And if two gun-carrying parties come to disagreement, the balance of power shifts from the physically stronger party (the greater evil in the author's argument) to the party with less self control, be they big or small, young or old, sane or otherwise. That doesn't really scream "great equalizer" to me. Last time somebody posted this blog in another venue, it was coincidentally in the wake of this episode. I linked it then and I'll link it now because it remains a perfect if not unfortunate rebuttal to "The Best Pro Gun Argument I Have Ever Read." Six men, all armed, started with a disagreement and ended with a bloodbath in the middle of a well-populated residential setting. Hardly an appeal to reason. Okay, that's all I care to say about it.
I'm not going to address the issue of gun control directly, but I think an interesting point that will be relevant in the near future is the ability to easily build your own guns with relatively cheap and accessible technology. As i'm sure many have seen, 3d printing has already proven to be a capable technology with the potential to produce polymer lower receivers or even a fully functioning firearm. As the lower receiver is the only part of a gun that is registered/considered a weapon, current access to the rest of what you need to build a fully functional rifle is as easy as a few clicks on the internet. It would even make building a fully automatic gun much easier than it currently is, which isn't extremely difficult now, but requires some machining or metal work(unless you consider the rubber band or string trick to produce a reliable fully automatic weapon too). The strength and quality of the polymers used in 3d printing is only going to improve, as well as the resolution of the 3d printer, which is already quite high. Laser sintering has even proven capable to build a complete, metal firearm, but the cost and availability for that technology will take a bit longer, I believe, to be accessible to the general public. It has also proven capable to subvert the high capacity magazine bans in states where they are banned, which isn't really as much of a new issue as driving across state lines is all that is necessary currently. My question is, does this mean that if we choose to regulate these weapons, do we not also have to regulate the machinery that has the capability to produce a highly functional and reliable weapon as well? Obviously the machinery now is not regulated, but it takes a certain degree of skill to operate the machinery to a degree which would allow someone to build a functioning firearm, which is probably a good enough barrier for most people who would want to build a firearm for nefarious purposes. When all it takes is a $300 printer and a quick download of a 3d model for a functional and reliable lower receiver though, does that not make gun regulation pointless? Would we need to expand our definition of what is a gun to prevent the purchase of the other components necessary to build the weapon, or is that irrelevant as 3d printing can produce a complete weapon, albeit one that's currently not extremely reliable(this could easily change though as the technology improves). I'm interested in others thoughts, especially as 3d printing is becoming more and more common as well as cheaper. Also just for reference here are some videos about 3d printed guns. Liberator Pistol This video talks about how the gov't wants to regulate the actual file instead, which we all know how hard that will be to find with p2p distribution. Printing of an AR15 lower Printed metal firearm using laser sintering
My cousin made a zip gun in 1976 with a piece of brass tube and a clothespin. A friend of mine made a better zip gun in 1992 with a piece of chrome moly and a lathe. Guns are easy. 3d printing only serves to open them up to the schlubs that failed metal shop.I'm not going to address the issue of gun control directly, but I think an interesting point that will be relevant in the near future is the ability to easily build your own guns with relatively cheap and accessible technology.
Right I understand that, but it's still a difficult task to build a reliable and functional semi-automatic weapon from scratch. Most gun legislation happens due to mass shootings, and in these mass shootings it's usually a semi-automatic rifle being used, which is usually what is being regulated. A 12 year old kid can order an upper receiver for an ar-15 off the internet or from a store with no restrictions and then buy a 3d printer for a couple hundred bucks, and in the future may have access to it already as some predict they will become a household item, and have a fully functional and reliable AR-15 in a matter of a few days. At least with homemade weapons there is some skill involved, and to build a reliable piece capable of being useful in a mass shooting would take at least a couple years for some random kid to hone the skill to build it, assuming he didn't have previous knowledge on metal working. If the problem with gun regulation being addressed is the ease of access to the firearms, then legislation for 3d-printing should definitely be considered, at least a background check for whomever purchases the 3d-printer, or changing the definition of what is a gun to include upper receivers as well.
No doubt. That's why we bought them at gun shows. While my buddy was machining himself a 9mm smoothbore, we were passing on Finnish anti-tank cannons for $1500. My uncle didn't like guns in the house, so my cousin experimented. My buddy Matt's parents didn't like guns in the house, so Matt experimented. Meanwhile, I could go plinkin' any time I wanted with 3 SKS, an AK-47, 2 AR-15s, an M1 garand, an M1 springfield, an AR-7, a .357, a .45 and my personal favorite, the 12-gage/30.30 over-under "bear gun." The thing that has changed the most since then is the cost of ammo. I used to get Chinese steel-core for 2 cents a round - then that asshole who makes the Thomson Contender decided 7.62x39 was a great pistol caliber so suddenly it became import-banned. Then all the crazy 'wingers decided Obama was going to take their guns so the ammo industry started gouging. Frickin' 5.56 - the Prepper round of choice - is now over a buck a bullet. Trust me, I know - I bought the limit (10 boxes of 20) for a buddy at Stockpile Defense. The 3d printer thing is a red herring, same as the "glock panic" back in the '80s.Right I understand that, but it's still a difficult task to build a reliable and functional semi-automatic weapon from scratch.
Yeah, the price of ammo is getting crazy expensive. Now our 5.45x39 surplus is getting banned too. It's a good thing I haven't bought an AK74 yet or I would be pissed. You still can't even find .22, which makes shooting for cheap pretty much impossible these days. I should mention I am against the semi-auto bans, but it's always being considered by some politicians, and if it does ever come back I wouldn't doubt if a few politicians would want to go after 3d printers too. I think you're right it's a red herring, but that doesn't mean it won't be all over tv with people pushing for regulation.