Gun Control Debate

[Túrin Turambar]

Restrictions on magazine sizes have been part of gun control laws in the U.S. at both a state and federal level (Wikipedia). I'm not sure of the pros and cons, although I have heard that one issue is that making home-made high capacity magazines is not too difficult.

[yovargas]

"Eight U.S. states, and a number of local governments, ban or regulate magazines that they have legally defined as high-capacity. The majority of states (42) do not ban or regulate any magazines on the basis of capacity. States that do have large capacity magazine bans or restrictions typically do not apply to firearms with fixed magazines whose capacity would otherwise exceed the large capacity threshold."

Not much, really.

Al, politically, there's basically nothing that is ever really discussed so there's no real way to answer that question.

[Frelga]

I'm reposting the link to the Yonatan Zunger's post I shared above. There's a very interesting, and surprisingly civil, discussion in the comments.

https://plus.google.com/+YonatanZunger/ ... DS3S8zt45c

[Sunsilver]

The most sickening thing I've read yet about the Florida shootings, other than the fact the survivors are now getting death threats from NRA supporters... A doctor reports on the devastating wounds he found himself treating after the shooting. Many of the victims suffered such massive injuries from the AR-15's high velocity bullets that they bled to death on the spot, and didn't even make it to the hospital. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ns/553937/

Going to quote the part that gets me the angriest:

As a doctor, I feel I have a duty to inform the public of what I have learned as I have observed these wounds and cared for these patients. It’s clear to me that AR-15 or other high-velocity weapons, especially when outfitted with a high-capacity magazine, have no place in a civilian’s gun cabinet. I have friends who own AR-15 rifles; they enjoy shooting them at target practice for sport, and fervently defend their right to own them. But I cannot accept that their right to enjoy their hobby supersedes my right to send my own children to school, to a movie theater, or to a concert and to know that they are safe. Can the answer really be to subject our school children to active shooter drills—to learn to hide under desks, turn off the lights, lock the door and be silent—instead of addressing the root cause of the problem and passing legislation to take AR-15-style weapons out of the hands of civilians?

But in the aftermath of this shooting, in the face of specific questioning, our government leaders did not want to discuss gun control even when asked directly about these issues. Florida Senator Marco Rubio warned not to “jump to conclusions that there’s some law we could have passed that could have prevented it.” A reporter asked House Speaker Paul Ryan about gun control, and he replied, “As you know, mental health is often a big problem underlying these tragedies.” And on Tuesday, Florida’s state legislature voted against considering a ban on AR-15-type rifles, 71 to 36.


If politicians want to back comprehensive mental-health reform, I am all for it. As a medical doctor, I’ve witnessed firsthand the toll that mental-health issues take on families and the individuals themselves who have no access to satisfactory long-term mental-health care. But the president and Congress should not use this issue as an excuse to deliberately overlook the fact that the use of AR-15 rifles is the common denominator in many mass shootings.

A medical professor taught me about the dangers of drawing incorrect conclusions from data with the example of gum chewing, smokers, and lung cancer. He said smokers may be more likely to chew gum to cover bad breath, but that one cannot look at the data and decide that gum chewing causes lung cancer. It is the same type of erroneous logic that focuses on mental health after mass shootings, when banning the sale of semi-automatic rifles would be a far more effective means of preventing them.

Banning the AR-15 should not be a partisan issue. While there may be no consensus on many questions of gun control, there seems to be broad support for removing high-velocity, lethal weaponry and high-capacity magazines from the market, which would drastically reduce the incidence of mass murders. Every constitutionally guaranteed right that we are blessed to enjoy comes with responsibilities. Even our right to free speech is not limitless. Second Amendment gun rights must respect the same boundaries.

The CDC is the appropriate agency to review the potential impact of banning AR-15 style rifles and high-capacity magazines on the incidence of mass shootings. The agency was effectively barred from studying gun violence as a public-health issue in 1996 by a statutory provision known as the Dickey amendment. This provision needs to be repealed so that the CDC can study this issue and make sensible gun-policy recommendations to Congress.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) of 1994 included language which prohibited semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15, and also large-capacity magazines with the ability to hold more than 10 rounds. The ban was allowed to expire after 10 years on September 13, 2004. The mass murders that followed the ban’s lapse make clear that it must be reinstated.

On Wednesday night, Rubio said at a town-hall event hosted by CNN that it is impossible to create effective gun regulations because there are too many “loopholes” and that a “plastic grip” can make the difference between a gun that is legal and illegal. But if we can see the different impacts of high- and low-velocity rounds clinically, then the government can also draw such distinctions.

As a radiologist, I have now seen high velocity AR-15 gunshot wounds firsthand, an experience that most radiologists in our country will never have. I pray that these are the last such wounds I have to see, and that AR-15-style weapons and high-capacity magazines are banned for use by civilians in the United States, once and for all.

[Maria]

That was posted in full a few pages back, Sunny.
http://thehalloffire.net/forum/viewtopi ... 48#p336548

I must apologize for passing on inaccurate information. I was wrong about the scarcity of bolt action rifles. The only bolt action I've ever shot was a single shot rifle, which really took a significant time to reload. Many, many hunting rifles have internal magazines with multiple bullets ready to go. I had always assumed those were auto reloaders of some sort, but a quick look at Bass Pro's online inventory of rifles shows lots and lots of bolt action rifles, and only some of those are labeled "single shot".

So, there's an intermediary class I either didn't know about or had forgotten. The multi shot bolt action rifle. Or lever action rifle - they have that too. With those you don't have to fumble around getting another bullet to stick in the chamber by hand. You just load the internal magazine with all the rounds it will hold and fire/ work the bolt/fire/work the bolt.

That would be enough to put down a bull gone crazy, which is the worst case scenario on our farm. (Barring zombie apocalypse, of course) So... go ahead. Ban all the semi-automatics. Who really needs them?

Oh, and in my defense, target shooting and hunting are not hobbies of mine. I've just been exposed to a lot of rifles and pistols and shotguns in both my personal and professional life. I'm not an enthusiast. They are just tools that I know how to use, more or less. With occasional weird and significant gaps in my understanding.

[yovargas]

For what it's worth, I've really appreciated your input, Maria.

[RoseMorninStar]

I think most people realize there is an appropriate time/place/use of firearms. I grew up in a family of duck/deer hunters. My father MAY have had a pistol, although I never saw it. We used to belong to a Civil war group and my husband owned and shot muskets & carbines at one time. Since we got out of that and he does not hunt, we no longer have guns. Well, we may have an air rifle and I have Sting. I don't believe most people are rabid anti-firearms of any and all types/uses. That said, having more firearms than people in a country not at war (on home turf anyway) is troubling.

From MY viewpoint, there are just too many very dangerous firearms, too few restrictions, and too little common sense regarding them. As with most things, a few bad apples can spoil the entire barrel. Additionally, there are tragic (and often avoidable) accidents, 'crimes of passion', or moments of despair when firearms readily at hand can be abused in seconds. The more abundant/lax people are with anything dangerous including, but not limited to, firearms the more problems there will be. That we have and have had a Federal ban on gun violence research for the last 22 years should be an enormous red flag that something is awry/that money is at the root of this issue. Imagine automakers having a ban on vehicle safety studies.

It is my observation that there is an attitude (not a wholesome one), which seems to have grown, that one's right to own and utilize a firearm (2nd amendment) supersedes the rights of all and everyone and everything else. Case in point: we have had people walking (parading) around the farmer's market carrying AR15's. They are legally able to do this, although it is illegal to have a live chicken at the farmer's market (maybe chickens have lethal aim? .) The gunmen said they needed the AR15's 'for protection'. At the Farmer's market. In a quiet, rural town. This was clearly not the case where they were carrying those deadly weapons. The guns were meant to intimidate and provoke. Power. Control. Menace. Last week two 19 year-olds were found with 3 'assault' (loose term) rifles including an AK47 and an AR15 and 2 handguns all loaded with magazines, and some brass knuckles in their vehicle attending a local High School basketball game. They said they had them because 'they may want to sell them'. Hmm. That doesn't make me feel any better that they can legally carry these around just anywhere and sell them to just anyone. It's insanity, that's what it is. There is a problem of ubiquity and attitude.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't know if it will make any difference in the long run, but one thing that we have seen happening in recent days that I don't recall happening in the past is that a significant number of businesses are severing ties with the NRA, including banks that have had credit card deals for NRA members and car rental companies and airlines that are ending promotions for NRA members. I don't know whether it will end helping lead to any kind of meaningful change, but anything that can reduce the virtual stranglehold that the NRA seems to have on policy-making is a positive thing, in my opinion.

[Frelga]

Maria, thank you for clarifying. I haven't shot a rifle since my teens, and I don't even know what kind of rifle it was, but I'm pretty sure I didn't have to break it open after every shot. I have a memory of that action of up, towards me, down, and reverse, that I think set up the next round as it ejected the empty. Does that make sense or is my memory getting holey?

Anyway, I thought that was what you meant, and wondered if that was really a big problem for hunters, but now your post makes better sense!

Continuing with the errata, I got confused about bump stocks in the other thread. They allow semi-automatic weapons, which are legal, to fire at near the rate of a fully automatic, which are not (the part I was confused about), so banning then should be non-controversial.

PS.: in case of zombies, I imagine a tractor would be a better defense than any gun.

[Sunsilver]

Wow, you just can't make this stuff up, folks! :o

https://thedailybanter.com/2018/02/-geo ... g-the-nra/

The panic of Republicans and the NRA must be starting to reach dangerous levels because only someone out of their mind with fear would put out the following tweet and think it was a good idea:

Casey Cagle
@CaseyCagle
I will kill any tax legislation that benefits @Delta unless the company changes its position and fully reinstates its relationship with @NRA. Corporations cannot attack conservatives and expect us not to fight back.

2:02 PM - Feb 26, 2018

Never mind that carrying through on his threat would be grounds for impeachment...

[RoseMorninStar]

There is panic. Power such as the NRA has wielded will not be surrendered without a fight (hopefully not a literal one). Survivors of the massacre are getting death threats for taking a stand against shootings ->these types of weapons->the NRA. I would like to think this type of thing is not wide-spread, but I've been seeing a lot of it on social media. It only takes one unhinged person to kill someone.

[Maria]

I have a memory of that action of up, towards me, down, and reverse, that I think set up the next round as it ejected the empty. Does that make sense or is my memory getting holey?

Yeah, that's how it works. The reload function is powered by the hand moving the bolt handle back and forth. With a semi-automatic, the reload function is powered by some of the gasses shooting backwards from the explosion of the gunpowder.

My husband tells me that a gas powered reload makes for a less accurate shot, because some of the energy is going backwards instead of forward. More propulsion to the bullet makes for a more accurate shot, apparently. Also, the single shot target rifles I fired so much in ROTC in college were single shots because you get a better seal on the chamber when firing, so the shot is even more precise. That's what I was remembering.

By the way, I'm left handed and was shooting right handed rifles, of course. This made reloading between shots pretty darn slow and frustrating, which is why I remembered that era so vividly. My deer rifle (which I've only shot a couple of times) is actually built left handed- which is pretty cool. It does have an internal magazine, but when my husband and I were first given the set of matching rifles, we went to go shoot them. At 300 yards I hit the bullseye with one shot, called it good and have only shot it one more time since. So, in essence, I was treating the rifle as a single shot type and remembered it that way.

I've *done* target shooting. I don't really need to repeat the experience again and again. And those .308 rounds are expensive!

[Frelga]

This seems pretty significant

Dick's Sporting Goods will stop selling assault-style rifles

The company said it will also raise the minimum age for all gun sales to 21. Dick's (DKS) will not sell high-capacity magazines that allow shooters to fire far more rounds than traditional weapons without reloading, as well as other accessories used with weapons similar to the AR-15.

Dick's Sporting Goods CEO Ed Stack: “We know there’s gonna be some backlash… We concluded that if these kids are brave enough to organize and do what they’re doing then we should be brave enough to take this stand.”

Maybe this time will be different?

[Dave_LF]

What sport are those things used for again?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Frelga, I heard that this morning and I thought it was significant too.

[Maria]

According to the article that Frelga almost linked, Walmart did the same thing a couple of years ago.

[Frelga]

What sport are those things used for again?

Hunger Games?

Maria, I saw that, too. I don't remember hearing about Walmart at the time. It's commendable that they have made that decision before the current wave of support for it. I do think it may be a more forceful statement from a sports store?

[RoseMorninStar]

Walmart stopped selling AR15's, bump stocks, and large capacity magazines in 2015.

Hunger Games?

Heh

The NRA is not the organization it once was. Originating as a grassroots social club which prided itself on independence from corporate influence it has become the prime defender of assault (type) weaponry whose bulk of revenue comes from gun industry sources. I had thought non-profit organizations couldn't utilize the bulk of their money/activities for lobbying, which currently seems to be their main purpose. Can other non-profits do this? Imagine if Scientology (for example) used the bulk of its money in this way. The NRA calling businesses 'cowards' is a disgusting bully tactic. Companies are well within their rights to take a stand for our children, our society, and it is their right to sell merchandise/extend discounts to whomever they choose. It is not cowardly to take a stand.

[Sunsilver]

According to the article that Frelga almost linked, Walmart did the same thing a couple of years ago.

Didn't Michael Moore's film, Bowling For Columbine have a lot to do with that? I remember them going into Wal-Mart stores in the film, and campaigning for them to shut down the sale of the guns and ammo that were used in the Columbine shooting.

[RoseMorninStar]

Our Walmart used to have a rather large, prominent, firearms section but they reorganized a year or so ago and I don't think they have it anymore. There is a sporting goods section, but I don't recall the counter with the locked cases/guns/ammunition. I'll have to look next time I'm in the store.