Las Vegas Shooting

[Elheru Aran]

Ray:

I'm not Simon, but I will note that for a variety of reasons that I don't have time to go into now... America *is* exceptional when it comes to gun control, and if you attempt to separate gun control in the US from the US itself, then you're only making general conversation about gun control on a theoretical level without discussing and understanding the practical realities of the context of the US.

Now if you want to argue whether the 'right to keep and bear arms' should or should not be an universal human right, as opposed to a *legal* right as it is in the US, then that's a different argument. But the fact of the matter is that you cannot say 'the right to keep and bear arms should not be a right in the US' because, well, it is a fundamental legal right until or if the Constitution is ever changed to alter that.

[ray245]

Ray:

I'm not Simon, but I will note that for a variety of reasons that I don't have time to go into now... America *is* exceptional when it comes to gun control, and if you attempt to separate gun control in the US from the US itself, then you're only making general conversation about gun control on a theoretical level without discussing and understanding the practical realities of the context of the US.

Now if you want to argue whether the 'right to keep and bear arms' should or should not be an universal human right, as opposed to a *legal* right as it is in the US, then that's a different argument. But the fact of the matter is that you cannot say 'the right to keep and bear arms should not be a right in the US' because, well, it is a fundamental legal right until or if the Constitution is ever changed to alter that.

My point is that it shouldn't be considered exceptional and whether Americans today think this is a right doesn't matter in this discussion. I'm questioning the validity of the rights that Americans supposedly think they should have, and whether those rights are justified on a more conceptual level.

Basically, if the American constitution is to be rewritten from scratch today, what sort of arguments those arguing in favour of gun ownership as a right need to make. I'm questioning whether the mindset taken by most American defenders of gun ownerships rights is valid.

[Simon_Jester]

America's strange features and history are a policy-level argument for whether or not gun control can or should be enacted.

Ray is apparently trying to engage this on an abstract level of political theory, which is a very different question. The object-level details in which the US differs from other countries aren't really relevant to the argument he seems to be after.

What I want is to have a discussion whereby we can remove the American context, and instead focus on establishing whether gun ownership is a right for individuals as a principle argument. Because all I am getting from you is to keep telling to me to wait for an argument has ye to arrive. I do not see why is it so difficult for you to first establish your principal argument before developing a more contextual-based argument.

Am I a little impatient? Well kinda because I've seen too many people making an America is an exceptional argument as reasons to oppose things like UHC and free speech.

I have no reason to believe you aren't diverting the topic.

Okay, well I can give you what you want once I have two things.

One, 30-60 free minutes to burn explaining myself (could take a while, could be relatively soon).

Two, your agreement that yes, there is a valid basis for saying "this is a right because of how it affects the individual's need for dignity, autonomy, security, or some combination of the three." That even if a right is "not necessary" or a thing we can "live without" or have functional-seeming civilizations without, it may nevertheless be a right if without it, people's dignity, autonomy, and security are compromised.

Please note that I am NOT asking you to accept that a right never needs to be balanced against another right. I am NOT asking you to accept that a right is absolute, that there are no valid reasons to limit the exercise of a right. I am asking you simply to accept that "the right to do X" can in fact be a thing. Even when we can theoretically live and thrive without X, but need X to live dignified, autonomous, secure lives.

I am asking you to acknowledge, in a direct and forthright manner, that this is a valid basis for the argument. From there, I can proceed. Without that, it would be a pure waste of my time.

[ray245]

America's strange features and history are a policy-level argument for whether or not gun control can or should be enacted.

Ray is apparently trying to engage this on an abstract level of political theory, which is a very different question. The object-level details in which the US differs from other countries aren't really relevant to the argument he seems to be after.

Well, policy level arguments are influenced by the way the average Americans think about more abstract political theory. So a shift in attitudes will in term affect the policies one can enact.

Okay, well I can give you what you want once I have two things.

One, 30-60 free minutes to burn explaining myself (could take a while, could be relatively soon).

Two, your agreement that yes, there is a valid basis for saying "this is a right because of how it affects the individual's need for dignity, autonomy, security, or some combination of the three." That even if a right is "not necessary" or a thing we can "live without" or have functional-seeming civilizations without, it may nevertheless be a right if without it, people's dignity, autonomy, and security are compromised.

Please note that I am NOT asking you to accept that a right never needs to be balanced against another right. I am NOT asking you to accept that a right is absolute, that there are no valid reasons to limit the exercise of a right. I am asking you simply to accept that "the right to do X" can in fact be a thing. Even when we can theoretically live and thrive without X, but need X to live dignified, autonomous, secure lives.

I am asking you to acknowledge, in a direct and forthright manner, that this is a valid basis for the argument. From there, I can proceed. Without that, it would be a pure waste of my time.

My main disagreement with you is that you see living and thriving as being distinct from dignified, autonomous and secure lives. I think they are fundamentally the same.

More importantly, I think also asking you that you need to acknowledge I am talking about rights in the sense that they operate on separate "tiers". On the most basic tier are things we considered to be universal, that everyone regardless of culture can all agree on as fundamental human rights. This includes the right to live a life and not be denied from basic necessities such as food, shelter and be seen as equal human beings.

The second tier is things that are considered rights that are required by a democratic society to function. This includes things like the right to vote, freedom of speech and so on. Without such stuff, democratic cannot fundamentally operate because the views of the people are not heard in any form. These are things that are "negotiated" within the society based on whether they feel a need to function as a democratic society. So in other words, society basically form a "social contract" with the state to forgo those rights in exchange for security ( be it real or perceived). So in other words, such society can tolerate dissidents being jailed because they value collective stability over the risk fo individuality right to self-express.

In a way, the notions of rights being tied to the notion of individuality are not entirely true in my opinion. Rights are effectively, tools of the community to ensure the individual has sufficient autonomy to create a common space safe and equal to all. The inability to create sufficient space for an individual to live a dignified, autonomous and secure life by the community impose to direct harm to the community itself. So rights exist for the benefit of the community. Its main purpose is not to exist for the sole benefit of the individual.

I do not think anyone can be said to be able to live an individualistic lifestyle in any way. The concept of an individual could only exist within a society. The indvidual needs is something provided by society in the very first place.

[Kon_El]

* Hunting is also entirely recreational at this point in society, so that counts there as well.

I know people who live out in the mountains who get a large portion of their meat from hunting. In parts of the country hunting is still food on the table.

How large a percentage of the total US population is this, though? I won't argue that hunting isn't an effective way to contribute extra protein to the diet, but I have to question how *necessary* it is for say... probably 90-95% at least of the population?

I can't imagine it is more than a few percent. The thing is those areas of the country are very poor. It may only be important for them but it is very important to them.

[LadyTevar]

* Hunting is also entirely recreational at this point in society, so that counts there as well.

I know people who live out in the mountains who get a large portion of their meat from hunting. In parts of the country hunting is still food on the table.

How large a percentage of the total US population is this, though? I won't argue that hunting isn't an effective way to contribute extra protein to the diet, but I have to question how *necessary* it is for say... probably 90-95% at least of the population?

In the Appalachian region, I'd say 3 out of 5 households have at least one family member who hunts. While a small portion of the total US population, it's a high number for the region. It's not uncommon for schools to be empty of teenagers on the first day of Deer Season, and many families do freeze the meat and live on it for several months. Those who just want the trophy horns often donate the meat to local food banks and food pantries, via Hunters Helping the Hungry (and other programs). I'm trying to find how much was donated last season, but the local paper has a paywall on older articles

Should you look up Hunters Helping the Hungry, it's not just in the Appalachian Region. They cover several Plains states and the Rockies, as well as parts of New England. I did not know there was a program centralized in Pittsburgh PA.

[Broomstick]

In Alaska subsistence hunting is such a thing that you can use food stamps to purchase hunting gear just as in the Lower 48 you can purchase vegetable seeds to grow your own food. There really are people in Alaska who would starve if they didn't hunt. Sure, they can get some other foodstuffs into the area... which costs a lot of spare cash... at high prices due to the cost of transporting food up there. Take away their guns they'll be back to spears and harpoons made of driftwood and bone and whatever scrap they can find, going to agriculture isn't an option up there. They'll also be much more vulnerable to wildlife attacks.

Due to such wildly different geographic factors in the US there really does have to be variant rules for some of the outliers.

[Alyrium Denryle]

In Alaska subsistence hunting is such a thing that you can use food stamps to purchase hunting gear just as in the Lower 48 you can purchase vegetable seeds to grow your own food. There really are people in Alaska who would starve if they didn't hunt. Sure, they can get some other foodstuffs into the area... which costs a lot of spare cash... at high prices due to the cost of transporting food up there. Take away their guns they'll be back to spears and harpoons made of driftwood and bone and whatever scrap they can find, going to agriculture isn't an option up there. They'll also be much more vulnerable to wildlife attacks.

Due to such wildly different geographic factors in the US there really does have to be variant rules for some of the outliers.

I can speak to this personally, having been born there. About 15 km outside of Fairbanks. There have been several occassions where killing predators (and moose) was absolutely necessary when I was growing up, because black bears in the early autumn will absolutely snag a small child (and moose are really fucking dangerous). My family didn't have grid-electricity until I was five (gas powered generator), and heated the house with a wood burning stove until I was nine. We were never connected to municipal water and had to haul water and dump it into our cistern; and didn't have a flushing toilet until I was six (yay for unheated outhouses when it's -40 Celsius!). Food prices are high, so we raised our own chickens (as well as ducks) and had an extensive vegetable garden. We didn't hunt, but we certainly fished. Our neighbors did hunt and they shared. Several families I knew (some of whom lived nearby, or I went to church with) had to hunt or their kids didn't eat.

Rates of alcoholism and drug use are also really high, particularly in the winter. Burglaries and other crime go right up (my home was burglarized by a drifter when I was about six years old) those can get dangerous, and there aren't any police who can get to you in time if there is a problem. 15 km away in winter might take more than an hour to reach you because the (unimproved) dirt roads have to be plowed free of meter deep snow.

Making a go of it even in semi-rural Alaska, even if you are fairly stable financially, can be really hard-scrabble. In that environment, having at least a shotgun in the house is practically mandatory.

But it has its cost. Really really high suicide rate. The same for domestic violence.

[Flagg]

The problem with suppressors is that they are made to make it harder to determinine where the gunfire is coming from. That’s why snipers use them. So if crazy shooter is in a building shooting up the place and you want to run away from it so as not to die, they make it harder. And they sell foam earplugs in bulk at every Wal-Mart and they are dirt cheap. Likely cheaper than a suppressor even over time.

Okay, that is a fair and valid counterargument about the object-level question "should suppressors be legal?"

And if the gun industry goes out of its way to make its products more lethal (they do) while fighting for less regulation (they do) why the hell shouldn’t they be liable if their product kills a sleeping toddler 2 blocks away from someone firing their product who without their obstructing legislation would not be able to get their hands on one?

Because at that point you're not suing someone for manufacturing a defective or illegal product. You're suing someone for lobbying. If that kind of lawsuit is valid, you've demonstrated that anyone who is harmed by legalizing something has standing to sue people who lobbied to make it legal.

Set that precedent, and now everyone who appeals to the government to change a law can be sued in federal (or state?) court by anyone who can demonstrate financial harm as a result of that change to the law.

I know you're creative enough to think of a wealth of ways that could go horribly wrong.

Yeah, but it’s not just lobbying by an ordinary industry, it’s lobbying for an industry given unusual protection that other industries are not. That’s the issue for me. If Ford were allowed to put the pedestrian equivalent of cow-catchers on their F-150’s (Shep’s masturbating to this, we all know it, and god bless him for it) and you couldn’t sue them for a driver who bought the latest model with saw blades and wrapped in razor wire and decided to spend a Tuesday morning mowing down anyone who didn’t get out of the crosswalk fast enough and the family of his commuter-whack-a-mole victims can’t sue Ford because congress made it impossible, but if the chewed up head of the five year old most recently pedestri-whacked flies up, cracks the windshield, and the driver hits a tree and cracks his skull he could sue because the toddler-smasher 9000 was supposed to deflect all body parts away from the vehicle, would that not seem fucked up to you?

I mean yeah, the toddler-smasher 9000 is for deer and the odd 300 lb mastiff and Ford can’t possibly be responsible for the misuse of their product...

And yeah, the product is made for wintry Alaska roads, not downtown Cleveland, but...

You see where I’m going here?

[Raw Shark]

Should you look up Hunters Helping the Hungry, it's not just in the Appalachian Region. They cover several Plains states and the Rockies, as well as parts of New England. I did not know there was a program centralized in Pittsburgh PA.

I don't know if Hunters Helping the Hungry exists formally in the part of New England that I grew up in, but I was a hunter helping my hungry immediate family from age 11-17 in fairly-urbanized eastern Massachusetts, a far cry from Appalachia or Alaska, and there was certainly a lot of trade with other gun enthusiasts involved. We ate the squirrels and rabbits ourselves during the hard times, but a lot of the corn and other crops that blowing them to varmint hell preserved got exchanged for everything up to a side of venison with other locals. My parents made a very good investment in a large extra freezer when I was young.

Also anecdotal, but I legally open-carried my 9 on my hip last night to go pick up cat food and litter from the dwelling of a potentially-violent drugged-out psychopath, and was glad to have the right.

Have I mentioned that I'm a pacifist hippie?

[Elheru Aran]

Interesting. Meanwhile:

http://www.petersenshunting.com/conserv ... n-decades/

Older article-- 2012-- so taking it with a grain of salt; however, it states that 6% of the population over age 16 goes hunting.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/227 ... nters-usa/

More current, but I don't know where they get their numbers. Notes ~16 million, which is roughly... I don't know. Uh, current US pop as of 2016 is ~323m, 10% of that is 32, so about 5 percent.

I will not deny that on a local level, these kind of numbers can definitely have an impact. I also don't doubt that hunting does provide supplemental, and sometimes even is a primary source of, nutrition for many people, especially in more isolated areas like Alaska or the West Virginia backwoods. I don't have a problem with this kind of thing. Hunting as a means of (even notional) survival is one thing. Even hunting as a sport for trophies is one thing, provided the meat isn't wasted and you aren't hunting animals that are endangered/threatened (I have little sympathy for rich white dentists who shoot animals tied to a stake, though). I do freely acknowledge that otherwise some people (not many compared to the US as a whole, but certainly enough) would have a hard time taking care of their families.

That said. You don't need a M-16 to hunt. You don't need bump fire or the ability to carry a rifle into Starbucks to collect a deer. The squirrels stealing your corn aren't going to care that you've got 40 guns in the safe. Basically what I'm saying here, I suppose, is that I don't find 'but hunting!' to be a realistic argument AGAINST gun control. Against *excessive* gun control of the 'taking all your weapons' kind of gun control, sure. Against the 'do you really need a small arsenal of black-ops-wannabe-guns, mate?' kind of gun control, no.

I mean.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... nment.html

Today only about a quarter of Americans own guns—but the average owner has three or four. Fewer than 8 million people, only 3 percent of all American adults, own roughly half the guns. Members of that tiny minority of superenthusiasts own an average of 17 guns apiece. (These data come from NORC at the University of Chicago’s 2015 General Social Survey, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2011 survey, the Congressional Research Service, the Federal Reserve, research by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, and a survey conducted in 2015 by Harvard and Northeastern University researchers.)

Is there something WRONG with owning multiple firearms? Not really, and I guarantee that probably... 99% of gun owners (the ones who actually provided data) are holding all those guns legally. But when you see numbers like this, it does make you wonder about the mindsets at work here. That's probably a separate discussion, though.

[Broomstick]

That said. You don't need a M-16 to hunt. You don't need bump fire or the ability to carry a rifle into Starbucks to collect a deer. The squirrels stealing your corn aren't going to care that you've got 40 guns in the safe. Basically what I'm saying here, I suppose, is that I don't find 'but hunting!' to be a realistic argument AGAINST gun control. Against *excessive* gun control of the 'taking all your weapons' kind of gun control, sure. Against the 'do you really need a small arsenal of black-ops-wannabe-guns, mate?' kind of gun control, no.

Agreed.

Is there something WRONG with owning multiple firearms? Not really, and I guarantee that probably... 99% of gun owners (the ones who actually provided data) are holding all those guns legally. But when you see numbers like this, it does make you wonder about the mindsets at work here. That's probably a separate discussion, though.

I know someone who owns at least 40 guns, and he acquired 3/4 of them via inheritance from deceased relatives. I think one of the rifles has been passed down through the family since the 19th Century. The other 10 he's purchased over the last 40 years or so. So yeah, he's got quite an arsenal. And it's all legal. And he has no interest in things like bumpstocks and probably half the guns haven't been fired in ages. (He's the guy who took me out to a gun range one time and let me fire probably 8-9 different guns.) He's got a lot of guns, but he's not the sort I worry about.

Somebody purchasing 30+ semi-automatic rifles in one year... maybe that should get some scrutiny. Maybe owning more than a certain number of guns should bring extra requirements. I'm certain there's a lot of things that should be looked at and done better.

[Civil War Man]

Is there something WRONG with owning multiple firearms? Not really, and I guarantee that probably... 99% of gun owners (the ones who actually provided data) are holding all those guns legally. But when you see numbers like this, it does make you wonder about the mindsets at work here. That's probably a separate discussion, though.

You know, in a way guns are like cats. A lot of people don't have any, but generally nobody considers it a big deal if you own one or two. Once you get beyond a certain number, though, you are generally going to come across as a weirdo unless you have a really good reason for owning that many (and sometimes even if you do have a good reason).

[Formless]

You know, the average being around 3 or 4 guns per owner should not surprise anyone when you stop to think about it. There are at least 3 types of guns to begin with, each of which serve a different purpose: pistols, rifles, and shotguns. Pistols are good for personal defense, rifles for hunting, shotguns for hunting either birds or in the brush as well as home defense. There is some overlap between the three categories, but you get the idea. If you own just one gun of each type you are already the "average" gun owner by number of guns owned. Plus, guns of different calibers serve different purposes too: for instance, a .22 LR rifle is a good training weapon and the first gun many people are introduced to thanks to its low recoil. You can also use it for hunting small game like rabbits. However, its downright illegal and inhumane to use on larger game like deer. So there is a fourth gun that could go in a person's collection, or an alternative gun to the pistol or shotgun depending on the owner's needs.

Incidentally, one reason AR-15's are such popular guns is that there are so damn many variants in variant calibers, from the normal .223 Win/5.56 NATO version to pistol caliber versions, .22 LR versions, specially designed big bore versions like .480 SOCOM, and even shotgun variants. And anyway, .223 Winchester doesn't kick so much as to be bothersome to many shooters at the range, so it can also just be a practice gun or a range toy not meant for serious combative use. The people who love them do tend to come off to me like they have some sort of fetish for the insanely high number of customization options available, but its not because the gun itself is lacking legitimate uses. Hell, the original .223 cartridge was designed for the civilian market before the military adapted it into the (slightly hotter) 5.56 NATO cartridge.

[Simon_Jester]

On the cats-gun collection comparison...

The thing is, cats die. Guns don't. If your grandma had two cats, and your other grandma had two cats, and your childless uncle had three cats and got a fourth two years before he died of a heart attack, that probably won't ever translate into you owning eight cats, at least not for the rest of your life.

But if those are all guns, they can all end up passed down to you, along with any you obtained for yourself back while those relatives were still alive, plus the collector's piece you bought because what the hell you already have like a dozen guns anyway so you might get one as a conversation piece for your neighbors to talk about, plus the other three collector's pieces, plus... you get the idea.

Guns don't die of old age, and they last basically forever if not misused, so there's no natural reason for gun collections to shrink rather than grow.

[Lonestar]

Is there something WRONG with owning multiple firearms? Not really, and I guarantee that probably... 99% of gun owners (the ones who actually provided data) are holding all those guns legally. But when you see numbers like this, it does make you wonder about the mindsets at work here. That's probably a separate discussion, though.

Why is this surprising? The 20/80 phenomena is real. You wouldn't be too surprised that 20% of DSLR owners are spending 80% of the cash spent on lenses, bodies etc. would you?

[Elheru Aran]

Is there something WRONG with owning multiple firearms? Not really, and I guarantee that probably... 99% of gun owners (the ones who actually provided data) are holding all those guns legally. But when you see numbers like this, it does make you wonder about the mindsets at work here. That's probably a separate discussion, though.

Why is this surprising? The 20/80 phenomena is real. You wouldn't be too surprised that 20% of DSLR owners are spending 80% of the cash spent on lenses, bodies etc. would you?

I'm not surprised as much as I'm asking 'what is the deal with this, why exactly does a small percentage of American gun owners hold the majority of legal weapons in the country'. Because that's a different proposition from cameras, which aren't particularly known for killing people. Well, there's always Princess Di, I guess...

I don't particularly have a problem with people having 'one of each' (or two, or even three perhaps). You buy one, if you like it it's logical enough to pick up a similar one... if I had acted on my impulse to buy a Moisin years ago I'd probably have a Mauser by now as well, maybe a Garand and/or a Springfield. That's just how that works.

I don't have a problem with black-guns/AR-types either, though I could pick bones with how they're marketed. It raises my eyebrows to see the whole focus on tacticool rail attachments, combat training, etc, when I know damn well most of these people aren't going to come anywhere near putting these weapons to their "intended use" or whatever. Downing a deer does not require a laser sight on a Picatinny rail, and most home-defense situations aren't going to go anywhere like the fetishists' room-clearing wet dreams. It's nothing in particular to do with the guns themselves (though they're not to my taste as you might have guessed about my comment re Mausers etc), it's in how they're envisaged, presented, and marketed by the manufacturers and the rags, then how they're venerated by the ammosexuals like some kind of Adeptus Mechanicus holy spawn of St. John Moses Browning, praise be his name and may his chambers always be clear... you know?

Which I suppose brings up a possibly relevant question. What's the big deal with the ammosexualization? Why did the gun mags shift from being mostly hunting/outdoorsy stuff to "Here's this AWESOME rifle that Our Brave Soldiers (TM) carry (see here's a picture of one with OUR PRODUCT), BUY IT. For Self Defense (and maybe Defense of the Nation, because we are all Born in America 2nd Amendment Loving Patriots)"? Or "Here's this AWESOME [Firearm] that's Practically Full-Auto (but isn't because of some minor trick of terminology or technology) that the Liberals will HATE" or whatever. I don't think you can really deny that this kind of marketing, which you can see any day of the week on the Walmart racks, has contributed to the problem.

Probably comes down to that goddamn wanker LaPierre. One of these days someone's actually going to manage to get the NRA named as an accessory...

[Zixinus]

You know, in a way guns are like cats. A lot of people don't have any, but generally nobody considers it a big deal if you own one or two. Once you get beyond a certain number, though, you are generally going to come across as a weirdo unless you have a really good reason for owning that many (and sometimes even if you do have a good reason).

- Should being a weirdo be illegal?

- Are the weirdos causing problems that is beyond the sphere granted to them as individual rights?

- If you are set on solving a particular problem (mass shootings), are these weirdos the source of the problem or an integral component to the problem? Here, it is because the Las Vegas shooter did legitimately buy 10 guns. But out of mass shootings, how many did the same?

[Formless]

Just a quick note for those unaware: it is illegal in most states to use .223 Rem/5.56 NATO to hunt deer. Normally you need 6mm or larger ammunition for big game, by law. Varmint, coyote, and hog are fine, though, and the intended game of the original .222 Rem cartridge the .223 Rem is based off of.

I feel from some of the comments in this thread that some people may not know the relevant hunting laws, but most gun owners with .223 rifles know. They have other reasons for buying them.

Which I suppose brings up a possibly relevant question. What's the big deal with the ammosexualization? Why did the gun mags shift from being mostly hunting/outdoorsy stuff to "Here's this AWESOME rifle that Our Brave Soldiers (TM) carry (see here's a picture of one with OUR PRODUCT), BUY IT. For Self Defense (and maybe Defense of the Nation, because we are all Born in America 2nd Amendment Loving Patriots)"? Or "Here's this AWESOME [Firearm] that's Practically Full-Auto (but isn't because of some minor trick of terminology or technology) that the Liberals will HATE" or whatever. I don't think you can really deny that this kind of marketing, which you can see any day of the week on the Walmart racks, has contributed to the problem.

Probably comes down to that goddamn wanker LaPierre. One of these days someone's actually going to manage to get the NRA named as an accessory...

I don't know for sure, but I would guess four things contributed:

1. The end of the Clinton era Assault Weapons ban. I think you will find that the "tacticool" phenomenon predates the ban, but the ban's existence put a dampener on people's enthusiasm for such things while it was in effect. Hell, it goes back even further in some ways, with Magnum cartridges being the Tacticool product of their era. The .44 Magnum cartridge doesn't have much use in revolvers outside of niche handgun hunting because a .357 Magnum is plenty hot to begin with; but when Dirty Harry said "Make My Day" everyone suddenly had to have one. The difference is that most people never shot their .44 because it was a pain in the wrist. 5.56 NATO on the other hand...

(that said, .44 Mag is a pretty good replacement for 44-40 WCF in lever rifles)

2. The general cultural shift that happened after 9/11. People in the US got more openly patriotic, and since the AR platform is closely associated with the US military it is automatically a Patriotic Object. Not that there isn't massive enthusiasm for Ak-47's as well, but that brings us to item 3.

3. Video games. There is enough overlap between gamers and gun enthusiasts that gun manufacturers will actually pay good money for their guns to appear in Call of Duty and other major FPS games. Its blatant advertising, and most gamers are unaware of it. Same goes for the accessories. However, most of those games aren't set in an environment where you expect to see sporting rifles, they are set in modern wartime environments or counter-terrorism contexts. So lots of love gets thrown towards the tacticool weapons, with the AK being one of the few "generic" guns to be ubiquitous in those games, and the gun magazines's love for tactical gear and combat weapons is simply a reflection of this trend.

4. The wars in Iraq and Afganistan. A lot of gun owners are veterans, and they want to own guns they are already (mostly) familiar with. This means they favor ARs, AKs (because they know how effective they are from first hand experience), and other guns with a "Black Rifle" aesthetic and handling properties. And to be fair, there is a reason the military puts pistol grips on rifles-- it does make the weapon more ergonomic, although that doesn't mean the weapon has to look Tacticool to achieve that advantage (for example). Meanwhile weapons like the Ruger Mini-14 that do the exact same thing in the exact same caliber but look more "traditional" don't get the same attention. The average reader no longer expects that kind of thing, nor wants one.

And it isn't just the civilian gun culture that is effected by the wars, it is likely that this is effecting law enforcement culture as well. A lot of police officers are military vets. That isn't the only thing driving the police force to become militarized, but it certainly can't be ignored.

If you want to find the kind of magazine that doesn't cater the Ammosexual crowd, you maybe ought to look for those magazines that are specifically catering to hunters. They tend to have words like "sportsman", "hunter", or "outdoors" in the title. Of course, they will also have a lot of non-firearm content, but hey, diverse content isn't a bad thing at all.

[MKSheppard]

So it turns out all of this is utterly pointless, as the perp made $5 MILLION from gambling one year.

With that kind of money, we're talking about:

http://www.urban-armory.com/cart/prodde ... ?prod=mk19

Mk 19 AGL, $285,000
+
$200 x 32 = $6,400 in tax stamps alone for 32 rounds of 40mm HEDP as Destructive Devices.

And since he planned this over years, apparently, he could put all this together patiently and then just hose down the area with 40mm high explosive grenades.

This guy was basically the AnCap dream == "I can do whatever I want with my recreational nuclear bomb"

[MKSheppard]

Guns don't die of old age, and they last basically forever if not misused, so there's no natural reason for gun collections to shrink rather than grow.

They're also durable investments.

A war surplus M1 Garand purchased in 1964 for $77.95 ($619.36 in today's dollars) would be going for $1,200 MINIMUM, it could be worth as high as $1,700 depending on if the serial numbers all match and the stock is original and in good condition.

Likewise, a Colt Python in 1968 was $140 ($1,008 today). But Pythons go from $1,200 to $5,000 (saw an engraved stainless steel python in a delaware shop for that much a week ago).

[MKSheppard]

You know, the average being around 3 or 4 guns per owner should not surprise anyone when you stop to think about it. There are at least 3 types of guns to begin with, each of which serve a different purpose: pistols, rifles, and shotguns. Pistols are good for personal defense, rifles for hunting, shotguns for hunting either birds or in the brush as well as home defense. There is some overlap between the three categories, but you get the idea. If you own just one gun of each type you are already the "average" gun owner by number of guns owned. Plus, guns of different calibers serve different purposes too

Let's not get into "I gotta have that" guns; for various reasons -- FN P90 variant (PS90) for the stargate SG-1 fan; Colt Python for the Walking Dead fan; Model 29 for the Dirty Harry fan, etc etc. It's easy to quickly get 10-15 guns without trying hard.

[MKSheppard]

Which I suppose brings up a possibly relevant question. What's the big deal with the ammosexualization? Why did the gun mags shift from being mostly hunting/outdoorsy stuff to "Here's this AWESOME rifle that Our Brave Soldiers (TM) carry (see here's a picture of one with OUR PRODUCT), BUY IT.

Because the fudds are almost all dead.

Probably comes down to that goddamn wanker LaPierre. One of these days someone's actually going to manage to get the NRA named as an accessory...

LaPierre is probably getting canned soon.

[The Romulan Republic]

LaPierre going down would make me almost as happy as a Trump cabinet member getting indicted.

[LadyTevar]

Now, let's see what is happening:

The National Rifle Association announced Thursday that it supports a review of bump fire stocks to see if they are in accordance with federal law.

The group's support comes following the mass shooting that took place in Las Vegas earlier in the week and amid calls to ban the devices, which allow semi-automatic weapons to simulate automatic weapon fire.
The NRA is typically the nation's most prominent lobbyist group against stricter gun regulations.
"The National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law," the NRA said in a statement. "The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations."
The debate on banning bump stocks is taking place on Capitol Hill. Florida Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo is planning to introduce legislation Thursday to ban the sale of them.
"I think we are on the verge of a breakthrough when it comes to sensible gun policy," Curbelo told reporters Thursday.
Curbelo said his office has been "flooded" with calls from fellow lawmakers inquiring about the bill.
The White House is open to legislation to ban bump stocks, press secretary Sarah Sanders said Thursday, and added that the administration wants to be part of the conversation in the days to come.
"We're certainly open to that moving forward," Sanders said.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi reiterated her proposal to increase background checks and call on House Speaker Paul Ryan to create a select committee to find common ground on gun violence at a CNN town hall Wednesday.
Pelosi also noted that there could be bipartisan support around the banning of sales on bump stocks.
"I do think there would be bipartisan support coming together to pass a bill to make it illegal to sell those because you can buy them now," Pelosi said Wednesday.
On Thursday, Ryan also signaled he would be open to examining the legality of bump fire stocks, telling Hugh Hewitt in an interview that "clearly that's something we need to look into."

And another Article announces the NRA has banned bumpstocks at their private rifle ranges.