Worldwide gun control disscussion

[Joun_Lord]

My last major debate thread on reddit had an opponent who was focused on being mugged. You were brought up rape in one of the other threads, Orlando I think, and we did a bit of looking before finding there wasn't really any data for america that met your own criteria of coming from post millenium.
Do you think if gun carry was legalised in the UK the crime rate would change? What about the number of people dead?

There probably isn't date, atleast none that I can find either. Muggings I'm guessing are either counted locally by itself or folded into either robbery or assault for larger statistics. Even wikipedia doesn't have its own real entry for mugging, instead just linking to robbery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mugging
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/c ... me/robbery

As you can see here half the robberies listed are street/highway robberies which are probably life car breakins mixed with muggings.

I try some more google-fu to see if I can find some better more accurate statistics on just muggings but no promises. The Google-fu is weak with me.

As for British carry. I dunno. I'm not even sure on the rate of successful self defense in the US beyond slanted articles either done by anti-gun nutters or pro-gun nutters. And I'm pretty neutral towards most public carry of firearms for self defense anyway. I'm not against it but I'm not for it either. I think if its to be done it should only be done by people given atleast some training, even just a gun safety class. Someone completely untrained will be more likely a danger to others then a benefit. Someone who isn't shaking life leaf on the wind and knows where the safety and shit is and how to check their targets could save lives.

I know however the crime rate wouldn't change for better or worse. Gun violence, violence in general, is not caused by gun. Guns are not like the Monolith from 2001 where just their presence causes people to go ape shit (or monkey shit I guess or to be more accurate guys in monkey costumes shit). The crime rate will go up or down because of outside factors completely unrelated to firearms.

Removing firearms arguably makes the crime less dangerous, though even thats HIGHLY debatable, but it also only leaves the criminals in sole possession of the firearms making it harder for people to defend themselves. I don't know if that would have an effect on the death rate letting people have firearms to blast Chavy McChavchav when he menaces them with a bottle of bleach, a bat'leth, a rebuilt airsoft gun, or an actual firearm, might make it go up but I dunno. Some deaths probably wouldn't be a bad thing, I can't say I'd shed too many tears over a violent criminal being killed.

[Beowulf]

I would like to bring up a critical flaw in the 2nd Amendment that makes me support removing it from the Constitution, or at least revising it heavily. The 2nd Amendment was a product of it's time, and that time has long since past.

<words words words>

Afghanistan. If it came to the people fighting against an enemy, foreign or domestic, they would not fight like another army. They'd fight like guerillas.

The other problem with this argument is that although it mentions militia as a reason, other documents contemporarously written protecting the right to keep and bear arms specify that the right exists to defend oneself and others.

ADDENDUM: For the record, it's antics like I mentioned above that makes responsible gun owners like me and many, many others sneer down at the pro-control crowd, and generally view them with contempt. The level of pure bullshit has been so high for so long, we automatically assume any advancement made in safety laws or anything connected to laws on guns is a smokescreen thrown up by grabbers. On the other hand, a lot of people like me loathe the NRA just as much for fanning the flames.

Eh. There used to be a moderate gun right organization, as the left apparently wants. It was called the NRA. It supported the 1934 NFA, and 1968 GCA. The NRA may not be the gun rights organization we would like, but the left has poisoned the existence of any other organization that could be less strident than the NRA. Essentially any gun rights organization that proposes gun control is assumed to actually be a astro-turf organization working towards banning guns.

I'm unconvinced by TRR's other three situations - high crime area, being high profile or being a persecuted minority. In all those, I' just don't see how having a gun protects you from getting shot. Especially in a scenario where the law justifies using deadly force in self defence. For the aggressor, that means you face a much higher chance of dying unless you take them out first. I recall the firing of a warning shot to make the aggressor aware you are armed and prepared to kill, so fuck off, is illegal, but just escalating straight to 'plumb between the eyes' is protected. It's a system designed to escalate and raise the stakes, instead of deescalate the situation. It's a system that kills people.
In the UK only proportional response is protected (i think), with homeowners arrested if they shoot a fleeing burglar or beat them into a coma with a cricket bat.

It doesn't protect you from getting shot, but it may protect you from other violence. A group of thugs out of a grand time of gay bashing tends to think twice about attacking a guy who might be armed. And it's not just for self defense, but defense of others. If you're in a group, being attacked, having a firearm might stop the attacker from hurting you, and continuing to hurt others in your group, even if it can't prevent it from happening in the first place.

The US requires a proportional response, generally speaking. Deadly force can generally only be used when in reasonable fear of death or grevious bodily injury (some weird Texas laws notwithstanding). This is why warning shots are illegal: because you're using deadly force, and it's obvious that the deadly force isn't yet required (because you're not actually using it against the attacker).

[MKSheppard]

Eh. There used to be a moderate gun right organization, as the left apparently wants. It was called the NRA. It supported the 1934 NFA, and 1968 GCA. The NRA may not be the gun rights organization we would like, but the left has poisoned the existence of any other organization that could be less strident than the NRA. Essentially any gun rights organization that proposes gun control is assumed to actually be a astro-turf organization working towards banning guns.

BZZT. Incorrect.

Link

The Literary Digest
June 16, 1934
Page 19

Club-Women Mapping War on Gangsters

Federation at Odds With Rifle Association After Ban on Pistols Is Deleted From Firearm Sale Regulation Bill

In their war on crime, the club-women of America are out to subjugate organized riflemen in order to get at the gangsters. The riflemen and others want pistols and revolvers readily purchasable for home defense against the gangsters. The clubwomen say that the bill they advocate for the regulation of firearms will not interfere with defense of hearth and home, in which they are as much interested as the men.

In a recent meeting at Hot Springs. Arkansas, the General Federation of Women's Clubs heard the Assistant Attorney-General of the United States. Joseph B. Keenan, say that the National Rifle Association had proved more powerful than the Department of Justice. It seems that the association had pistols and revolvers deleted from a Federal bill to regulate the sale of firearms, before the Ways and Means Committee of the House. Mr. Keenan said that the measure, as written originally, would have done much to check crime. He wanted to know who was running the Government.

Mrs. William Dick Sporborg of Port Chester, New York, chairman of the clubwomen's resolutions committee, jumped to her feet to say that if 1,000,000 members of the Rifle Association were strong enough to get the smaller firearms taken from the bill, “two million American club-women are strong enough to lick them to a frazzle and make them put back into that measure the pistols and revolvers they deleted from it.” Thereupon she offered a resolution, which was adopted and ordered telegraphed to members of the Ways and Means Committee and other Congressional leaders. The resolution expressed the “outrage” felt by the women at the alteration of the bill, and said: “We hold that the security and safety of the homes and families of all the people of this country and the protection of life and property for all the 120,000,000 people of the land transcend the selfish interests of any organized small minority. We hold you accountable for your responsibility to the people of your State and of your country, and demand that the bill to regulate the sale and possession of firearms include pistols and revolvers, and that it be speedily enacted into law.”

Field & Stream, a magazine for sportsmen published in New York City, came to the rescue of the embattled riflemen and Congressmen. In a telegram to the clubwomen, the magazine said it was absurd to think that the Rifle Association was stronger than the Department of Justice, that pistols and revolvers were omitted from the bill “because of the fact that the security and safety of the homes and families of all the people of this country demand it,” and that the proposed law “is a vicious measure that would affect only honest citizens without the slightest effect on criminals, and is believed by many people to be part of an announced effort to ultimately deny all citizens the right to possess firearms of any kind and for any purpose.” The telegram closed with a request that the clubwomen rescind the resolution.

Instead, the club-women reiterated their position. A reply sent to the magazine by Mrs. Grace Morrison Poole, president of the Federation, and Mrs. Sporborg said “that through compliance with regulations that demand proper identification, accredited licensing and registration, no respectable citizen of honest intent would be denied protection.”

“The intent of the campaign that the Federation is waging against the crime wave in this country,” the resolution went on, “is to make it more difficult for the gangster to have access to firearms. The more speedily this country passes laws which disarm the underworld, the increasingly less will be the need of protection on the part of honest citizens. That is the objective of the Federation in its conscientious interest in the homes and lives of the American public. Its slogan is to 'disarm the gangster, not arm the citizenry.' ”

[Alyrium Denryle]

I'm unconvinced by TRR's other three situations - high crime area, being high profile or being a persecuted minority. In all those, I' just don't see how having a gun protects you from getting shot. Especially in a scenario where the law justifies using deadly force in self defence. For the aggressor, that means you face a much higher chance of dying unless you take them out first.

I have broken teeth because a couple assholes through rocks at me in Year 9. Now, as a 9th grader, I could not carry a weapon, but imagine if that had occurred a few years later when I could. Throwing rocks the size of baseballs is lethal force, at range. I could not close to engage without their accuracy and force behind the throws going up. A gun would be a useful defense tool in such an instance.

There are also many many places in the US where police look the other way when we (gays) are assaulted. In Washington DC, for instance. There are hate crime laws on the books, but a lot of gay people live in Virginia where no such laws exist, because in DC they dont deter assaults due to a lack of the police giving a shit. So they carry a concealed weapon to avoid becoming like Matthew Shepherd. The same is true here in AZ, and for that matter in Texas where there has been a rash of hate crimes this year in the gay district of Dallas since the start of the year and the police have done sweet fuck-all to investigate it.

And then there are transpeople, who are regularly assaulted by police, and who often get thrown into prison for murder when they defend themselves against their own would-be killers.

Now, I agree that a gun should be permitted to be used to de-escalate. Warning shots should be legally protected. But there ARE people for whom de-escalation is often not an option, because the objective of the other person is to kill us in the first instance, or if it is not, we have no way to know that at the time.

A gun might not protect me from being shot, but it can give me a fighting chance in that event. If someone wants to beat me to death, I have an advantage.

Now, I dont carry a weapon, mostly because I have never been able to afford one, and am not personally very comfortable with them. But I wont deny the utility.

Were I dictator, here is what I would do.


1. Open carry of long guns needs to go, outside certain areas like rifle ranges or the woods when hunting, obviously. On the streets, it needs to be in its case. The reason for this is threat ID. Someone walking near a bank with an AK-47 could be some guy walking down the street, or someone who wants to rob a bank. We need to know which it is, so you eliminate the first possibility.

2. No collapsible stocks on civilian guns. That way, said Sig MCX is harder to conceal in a large coat. A telescoping section in order to provide size-adjustment so you can brace against the shoulder comfortably would be fine, but nothing fully collapsible or removable.

3. Limit magazine size. Yeah, criminals can get around this (black markets etc), but a spree shooter is operating from their arsenal, or their grandfathers arsenal, and likely wont know the first thing about accessing the black market. It is not like they have signs and newspaper ads. This means shooters have to reload more frequently, which will reduce their body count, and increase logistics costs for them. It evens the playing field with police etc who might just have a pistol at close range.

4. Ban silencers. No civilian needs them. Plus, while they dont turn a gunshot into the little mousefart you see in movies, they do reduce the decibels, and thus reduce the range at which gunshots can be detected with the Mk 1 earhole, and increase police response time (potentially).

5. No Gun Zones. Any secure area (many of these are already covered, but lets list them). Government buildings (post-offices, courts), transit terminals (Air, bus, train), bars (because guns and booze dont mix, exception will be for non-drinking employees like bouncers who may carry a secured concealed weapon), schools (with the exception of accredited security personnel like campus cops), universities (because guns and booze, and guns and high-stress dont mix)

5. Most Important. Licensing. Licenses Must Be Shall Issue. If the requirements are met, the license authority must not be able to deny said license without cause. To do otherwise would open the door to discrimination, which absolutely happens in May Issue jurisdictions for concealed carry permits.

The license covers safety, the care and feeding of firearms, legal compliance issues (use of force criteria, prohibited locations etc) and post-use (in self-defense, lets say) procedures for safety interacting with police. There is classroom instruction (available on weekends), and involves both written and practical exams.

But that is not the important part. The important part is to get people who want guns to spend some quality time with a Mandatory Reporter. In addition to the basic requirements, said mandatory reporter is there as a safety valve to catch people who might be a danger to themselves or others. They will be trained in spotting these people, and then are legally obligated to inform another regulatory body which can check the person out and independently determine if that suspicion is correct. License application gets put on a psych hold until that is complete.

[His Divine Shadow]

Silencers should be unregulated completely everywhere, like in Finland. They've never been a problem in crime in general or gun crime and the police here have no desire to even go after them even when they where given the chance to. And you'll find the same goes elsewhere, suppressors are allowed even in the UK for those rare people there that bother to own guns. Basically all the euro countries that allow suppressors find them to be a complete and utter non-issue. The american hangup on suppressors continues to be weird. Like the UK hangup on guns when I think about it. I guess the unknown is scary.

Suppressors are infact a huge net positive in for health and noise pollution and the more that have them the better off we all are.

[Formless]

Ninja'd by HSD. Well, might as well elaborate on the health benefits of silencers anyway:

4. Ban silencers. No civilian needs them. Plus, while they dont turn a gunshot into the little mousefart you see in movies, they do reduce the decibels, and thus reduce the range at which gunshots can be detected with the Mk 1 earhole, and increase police response time (potentially).

Silencers were not invented for tactical use, they were invented for hunting. In fact, the earliest silencers were invented for shotguns, believe it or not (some people will tell you that you can't silence a shotgun-- they are wrong). The idea was to protect your hearing and reduce noise in crowded areas where hunting still takes place, but you don't want to be an obnoxious asshole. In many European countries, this is still how silencers are seen and they are not only allowed for hunters, last I checked there are places where you can't hunt without a silencer because of the aforementioned crowding and noise issue.

Now you might wonder why the safety thing would matter since you can always just use ear plugs. Well, two things: first, when I took hunters safety training the teacher, who was an officer of the Fish and Wildlife Bureau, pointed out that hunting dogs often lose their hearing for exactly this reason. He suggested sucking it up, getting a tax stamp, and buying a silencer. The other thing is that when you are actually hunting, its good to have your hearing to help you track and find the animal you are trying to hunt. Ear plugs sound great in theory, but out in the wilderness things are different than out on the range. It was my own father, who always insisted that I wear hearing protection when shooting at a range, who said I was better off not wearing them when we hunted together. If we could have a silencer, then you get the best of both worlds on that.

So yes, actually, there IS good reason for civilians to have silencers. You just aren't used to thinking about them as safety devices because of decades of Hollywood bullshit.

[Channel72]

Likewise, someone living in an area with high crime (much less an war zone) with shit law enforcement might have more need of a gun to defend themselves.

This argument never really rang true. I regularly walk around in a high crime area, unarmed, and ... nothing happens.

Anecdotes aside, statistically speaking, most forms of inner-city crime or gun-violence aren't targeting random civilians. They're targeting other criminals or rivals - they're the result of drug deals gone bad, or just petty macho squabbles or whatever. Other common crimes include things like stealing parts from parked cars, breaking and entering into small businesses, etc. Very rarely are random people just attacked/mugged/whatever. Yeah, it happens, but it's usually like a bunch of 14-year old kids attacking a 60 year old man at 1am or whatever. The point is, it's not a common problem for regular people not involved in criminal/gang activity. It turns out stealing like $10 from some guy at the bus station at night isn't a great business model.

Of all the arguments to own a gun, the best ones are probably for people who live in remote rural areas - and really, for that you just need a shotgun. But there's really no argument for anyone owning an AR-15.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ninja'd by HSD. Well, might as well elaborate on the health benefits of silencers anyway:

4. Ban silencers. No civilian needs them. Plus, while they dont turn a gunshot into the little mousefart you see in movies, they do reduce the decibels, and thus reduce the range at which gunshots can be detected with the Mk 1 earhole, and increase police response time (potentially).

Silencers were not invented for tactical use, they were invented for hunting. In fact, the earliest silencers were invented for shotguns, believe it or not (some people will tell you that you can't silence a shotgun-- they are wrong). The idea was to protect your hearing and reduce noise in crowded areas where hunting still takes place, but you don't want to be an obnoxious asshole. In many European countries, this is still how silencers are seen and they are not only allowed for hunters, last I checked there are places where you can't hunt without a silencer because of the aforementioned crowding and noise issue.

Now you might wonder why the safety thing would matter since you can always just use ear plugs. Well, two things: first, when I took hunters safety training the teacher, who was an officer of the Fish and Wildlife Bureau, pointed out that hunting dogs often lose their hearing for exactly this reason. He suggested sucking it up, getting a tax stamp, and buying a silencer. The other thing is that when you are actually hunting, its good to have your hearing to help you track and find the animal you are trying to hunt. Ear plugs sound great in theory, but out in the wilderness things are different than out on the range. It was my own father, who always insisted that I wear hearing protection when shooting at a range, who said I was better off not wearing them when we hunted together. If we could have a silencer, then you get the best of both worlds on that.

So yes, actually, there IS good reason for civilians to have silencers. You just aren't used to thinking about them as safety devices because of decades of Hollywood bullshit.

Hmm. I had not considered that.

Conceded.

[TheFeniX]

Of all the arguments to own a gun, the best ones are probably for people who live in remote rural areas - and really, for that you just need a shotgun.

Shotguns rarely mount the optics you need to hunt game or pest animals at long ranges. Those that do are usually black and scary looking. Slugs have tremendous recoil and firing them is not fun, meanwhile many rifles just do the job better.

Snake-guns also exist for a reason. Something like the Judge that fires .410 shells and has the perfect spread to kill or force away snakes at the range you would stumble on them. The load is so light, even if you accidently shot yourself in the foot, as long as you were wearing some form of heavy footwear (steel-toe even better) the chance of injury is low. And it's much easier to lug that around than a 28" barrel shotgun. My Mossberg is around 4-foot long in total. High-caliber handguns, usually revolvers, are also effective against other wild animals... and people.

Also, out of the top 10 guns used in crimes, there's only one longgun on the list: take one guess at what it is.

But there's really no argument for anyone owning an AR-15.

I'd like to hear what you base this argument on.

[Joun_Lord]

But there's really no argument for anyone owning an AR-15.

I assume you are fine with someone owning a hunting rifle? Because other then looks there is really no difference between an AR-15 and a far less scary looking hunting rifle. Most modern-ish hunting rifles will have detachable magazines (though rarely will anyone have large ones to go hunting for the simple fact a large 30 round magazine makes shooting prone a bitch), are semi-automatic, and actually have more "firepower" then a standard AR-15. The average AR-15 fires the 5.56/.223 round which is a round some hunters consider a varmint round. A varmint being usually a small nuisance animal such as rats, house sparrows, starling, crows, ground squirrels, gophers, jackrabbits, nutria, marmots, groundhogs, porcupine, opossum, coyote, skunks, weasels, or feral cats, dogs, goats, pigs and other animals. Deer rifles and large will have larger rounds including .30-06. .308/7.62 US or Russian, .240 Weatherby, .30-30, 12 gauge slugs and even black powder .50 cal rounds.

The AR-15 is a military design but that doesn't make it unique. Many hunting rifles are based on military designs if not actual military weapons used in combat. Surplus weapons like the Ruskie Mosin Nagant, Swiss K-31, any of the various Mausers, the Italian Carcano (one of which was used by Lee Harper Oswald) and the 1903 Springfield are all pretty popular hunting rifles either unmodified or "sporterized". Most of them are bolt action (which is itself a military design) but some like the M1 Garand, SKS, and M1 Carbine are all semi-automatic surplus weapons that are popular with hunters to varying degrees.

Moving away from surplus weapons, there are many hunting rifles that are virtually the same as an AR-15 other then looks. Some are just AR-15s modified or designed to look more like classic hunting weapons. Same semi-auto action, same large magazine capacity (can even accept AR-15s magazines in some cases), some bullet, same everything other then whats its packaging is.

That is the main and really only difference between hunting weapons and the AR-15, looks. The AR-15 looks scary, looks modern, looks tactical and did I mention scary. Hunting rifles do not.

So if there is no argument for someone owning an AR-15 then there is no argument for someone owning a hunting rifle.

[Broomstick]

In the UK only proportional response is protected (i think), with homeowners arrested if they shoot a fleeing burglar or beat them into a coma with a cricket bat.

Even in a castle law state such as I live in shooting someone in the back, which implies said person was leaving the area and thus no longer a thread, is attempted murder. While "proportional response" might be different in some details, once the person is no longer a threat you are no longer permitted to use violence, even in the US. So if you hit someone with a cricket bat in self-defense and that person collapses/falls down you are not allowed to keep hitting him, doing so means you have moved from self-defense to assault and opened yourself to criminal prosecution.

Just wanted to make that clear. US self-defense laws do not give carte blanche for murder.

[Broomstick]

Basically all the euro countries that allow suppressors find them to be a complete and utter non-issue. The american hangup on suppressors continues to be weird. Like the UK hangup on guns when I think about it. I guess the unknown is scary.

Suppressors are infact a huge net positive in for health and noise pollution and the more that have them the better off we all are.

I think the US hangup on suppressors goes back to their use by Prohibition gangs in the 1920's and '30's. In other words, there were reasons, but most people have forgotten them by now.

[Imperial528]

But there's really no argument for anyone owning an AR-15.

I assume you are fine with someone owning a hunting rifle? Because other then looks there is really no difference between an AR-15 and a far less scary looking hunting rifle. Most modern-ish hunting rifles will have detachable magazines (though rarely will anyone have large ones to go hunting for the simple fact a large 30 round magazine makes shooting prone a bitch), are semi-automatic, and actually have more "firepower" then a standard AR-15. The average AR-15 fires the 5.56/.223 round which is a round some hunters consider a varmint round. A varmint being usually a small nuisance animal such as rats, house sparrows, starling, crows, ground squirrels, gophers, jackrabbits, nutria, marmots, groundhogs, porcupine, opossum, coyote, skunks, weasels, or feral cats, dogs, goats, pigs and other animals. Deer rifles and large will have larger rounds including .30-06. .308/7.62 US or Russian, .240 Weatherby, .30-30, 12 gauge slugs and even black powder .50 cal rounds.

Caliber isn't always the best indicator there. 5.56mm NATO's ballistic profile produces a tumble and fragment effect at high impact velocities in flesh, leading to extreme injury (to the point where some variants of the round are considered inhumane, such as the M193) unexpected from the caliber and size of the bullet alone.

Frankly I expect if you shot varmints with 5.56mm NATO you'd be left with a bloody mess that happens to resemble an animal more often than not, especially cat-sized animals or smaller.

In my opinion, if you're going to allow sale and ownership of firearms in your country, it's better to regulate types of ammunition sold commercially than just make of gun alone. Of course this won't stop hand-loaders from getting around the regulations or bending them, but it will make it more difficult to get a hold of more-lethal ammunition for those looking to commit attacks in a short timescale.

Oh, and if you are going to restrict or ban certain makes of ammunition from commercial sale, they should ideally get a few experts in with the list or bill's drafting process so you don't have silly things like ball ammunition getting banned because it has the same shape as an armor piercing round or something equally ridiculous.

[Highlord Laan]

But there's really no argument for anyone owning an AR-15.

I use mine for everything from target shooting for fun and pleasure, occasionally competitively, and for light hunting. It's a fun, comfortable, reliable rifle that is simply a pleasure to shoot.

It's also nothing more than a semi-automatic hunting rifle in Evil Black with an Evil Military Foregrip and Evil Milspec Pistol Grip.

Allow me to expand on just how absurd your argument is with some devils advocating: Know what there's no reason for owning? Cars that go over 100mph on a straightaway and accelerate to 60 in under five seconds. You will never need to accelerate that fast, nor got that fast. Unless, of course, you're running from cops. Are you a criminal? Or do you just not care about the safety of those around you, using a vehicle meant for professionals and already kills thousands of people nationwide?

Banning anyone's favorite rifle (not "Assault Rifle" as yes, there is a big damned difference) would be just as wrongheaded and dumb as banning sports cars. And they kill more people yearly.

[TheFeniX]

Allow me to expand on just how absurd your argument is with some devils advocating: Know what there's no reason for owning? Cars that go over 100mph on a straightaway and accelerate to 60 in under five seconds. You will never need to accelerate that fast, nor got that fast. Unless, of course, you're running from cops. Are you a criminal? Or do you just not care about the safety of those around you, using a vehicle meant for professionals and already kills thousands of people nationwide?

Your analogy gives the argument too much credit. It's more like banning Pontiac Fieros with Lamborghini body kits because they look like they could go over 100MPH even though what's under the hood is a basic commuter car.

[Dominus Atheos]

But there's really no argument for anyone owning an AR-15.

I assume you are fine with someone owning a hunting rifle? Because other then looks there is really no difference between an AR-15 and a far less scary looking hunting rifle. Most modern-ish hunting rifles will have detachable magazines (though rarely will anyone have large ones to go hunting for the simple fact a large 30 round magazine makes shooting prone a bitch), are semi-automatic, and actually have more "firepower" then a standard AR-15. The average AR-15 fires the 5.56/.223 round which is a round some hunters consider a varmint round. A varmint being usually a small nuisance animal such as rats, house sparrows, starling, crows, ground squirrels, gophers, jackrabbits, nutria, marmots, groundhogs, porcupine, opossum, coyote, skunks, weasels, or feral cats, dogs, goats, pigs and other animals. Deer rifles and large will have larger rounds including .30-06. .308/7.62 US or Russian, .240 Weatherby, .30-30, 12 gauge slugs and even black powder .50 cal rounds.

Caliber isn't always the best indicator there. 5.56mm NATO's ballistic profile produces a tumble and fragment effect at high impact velocities in flesh, leading to extreme injury (to the point where some variants of the round are considered inhumane, such as the M193) unexpected from the caliber and size of the bullet alone.

Frankly I expect if you shot varmints with 5.56mm NATO you'd be left with a bloody mess that happens to resemble an animal more often than not, especially cat-sized animals or smaller.

In my opinion, if you're going to allow sale and ownership of firearms in your country, it's better to regulate types of ammunition sold commercially than just make of gun alone. Of course this won't stop hand-loaders from getting around the regulations or bending them, but it will make it more difficult to get a hold of more-lethal ammunition for those looking to commit attacks in a short timescale.

Oh, and if you are going to restrict or ban certain makes of ammunition from commercial sale, they should ideally get a few experts in with the list or bill's drafting process so you don't have silly things like ball ammunition getting banned because it has the same shape as an armor piercing round or something equally ridiculous.

There's no such thing as ammunition (for long guns anyway) that won't fuck up whatever it hits. Look at what birdshot does:



If a mass shooter was using that ammo, they'd still be able to kill everyone they hit.

[Joun_Lord]

Caliber isn't always the best indicator there.

I am aware of this, though I will admit such knowledge is rather limited all things considered if for nothing else then my lack of hands on experience in recent years.

Different rounds have different characteristics depending on what they are designed to do and even the barrel of the weapon (something to do with twists and shit, I don't know). Military grade ammo is going to perform differently from civilian grade ammo, especially ammo designed for hunting.

I would expect shooting like squirrels with a certain types of 5.56 ammo, especially those bullets designs to fragment, would be like playing Fallout with the Bloody Mess perk but not all. I know that FMJ rounds are bad for hunting especially with larger animals because they tend to "zip" through the animal doing minimal damage leaving it crawl away in pain. There tend to be special varmint hunting rounds people use to put down the animal humanly while not fucking up the pelt or the meat or rounds to just destroy the animal as quickly as possible at long range for smaller animals with little value in meat or fur like prairie dogs for many.

Military grade ammo from what I've heard is a bit of a mixed bag when it comes to different types. I know people both in hunting and combat have complained about the M855 having little stopping power, not yawing or fragmenting against thinner targets and having inconsistent performance. Its a poor hunting round and quite a few would argue it is a poor combat round, hence why the M855A1 was made.

Overly lethal ammo in the US as far as I know is already restricted or banned. Rounds like the armor piercing SS190 5.7 round is restricted to military and law enforcement sales only while "sporting" versions of the 5.7 round are not. Presumably this is the same with most ammunition.

All that aside, my point was the 5.56/.223 is generally not as powerful as many hunting rounds (with the exception of more exotic ammo types). .223 is considered a insufficient round for deer hunting by many and is possibly even restricted in deer hunting in some areas.

http://www.in.gov/activecalendar_dnr/Ev ... =syndicate
http://info.stagarms.com/blog/bid/38189 ... -Hunt-With

Its certainly not any more dangerous just by its ammunition then a "proper" hunting rifle is.

There's no such thing as ammunition (for long guns anyway) that won't fuck up whatever it hits.

There are beanbag rounds and simunition for shotguns and rifles that might hurt like a bitch but won't really fuck something up.

Yes I know, being a pedantic son of a bitch.

[Jaepheth]

A thought occurred to me the other day:

What if we outlawed civilian use of nitrocellulose (smokeless) powder?

Mandating all civilian firearms use black powder:
*A mass shooter would be firing fairly blind after a handful of shots. (especially in an enclosed space)
*Lower muzzle energy would lead to a few borderline casualties surviving instead of dying.
*And here's the main one: Residue buildup would probably render a firearm inoperable after going through a single high-cap magazine. I know buildup starts effecting accuracy in my flintlock rifle after only 6 or so shots. Buildup in an AR or similar rifle could cause a barrel obstruction or gum up the gas piston after a single magazine is fed through. You'd probably have to redesign the action just to get it to cycle semi-automatically.

You could then require a license for anyone who really wants or needs to use smokeless powder.

another example

[Highlord Laan]

So, effectively ban weapons you find scary by way of banning the proper ammunition?

Get Fucked, grabber.

[madd0ct0r]

In the UK only proportional response is protected (i think), with homeowners arrested if they shoot a fleeing burglar or beat them into a coma with a cricket bat.

Even in a castle law state such as I live in shooting someone in the back, which implies said person was leaving the area and thus no longer a thread, is attempted murder. While "proportional response" might be different in some details, once the person is no longer a threat you are no longer permitted to use violence, even in the US. So if you hit someone with a cricket bat in self-defense and that person collapses/falls down you are not allowed to keep hitting him, doing so means you have moved from self-defense to assault and opened yourself to criminal prosecution.

Just wanted to make that clear. US self-defense laws do not give carte blanche for murder.

Yeah, I appreciate only the most extreme cases will make the news enough to cross the pond, so my view is probably pretty skewed. And I'm finding some inconsistencies in my own views that need hammering out.

The principal of de-escalating the weapons-race between criminals and the population relies on guns being difficult and expensive to get hold of. But I accept that wilderness areas will need them, that certain professions might require them and I'm on the fence regarding home defence. It's a clear and obvious force equaliser for you Broomy, and I'd like to say your situation is pretty extreme, but maybe it isn't. Maybe just the majority of folks in areas like yours wouldn't hang out in circles that overlap with my internet nerdery, and my impression of america as 90% suburbs of spoiled white over-grown teenagers is biased by tv shows and reddit. I know in the UK there are specialist funds for things like reinforced doors for people who have been the victim of hate crimes/vendettas ect, and I think that, as a principle, the steps should be 1) dealing with the source of the crime(hah!), 2) non-violent prevention that dosen't impinge on the possible victim, 3) de-escalating and insurance, 4)violent self defense.
Of course, you can prepare for all four steps, especially if the first three are ineffective and there's a significant residual risk.

The thing is, if I accept the use of shotguns ect for step 4. and it follows that said gun should be trained with and kept accessible and usable in a short time frame for it to fufill it's role, then along with the wilderness and professions, that's a shit ton of weaponry floating around the country and a criminal will not find it difficult to get hold of one. Is a situation where a criminal has a gun and the victim dosen't significantly worse than one where both do? It increases the chance of the criminal doing bad things at gunpoint, but it halves the chance of an accidental shooting of each other or a bystander. I guess it depends on the frequency of the 'doing bad things at gunpoint', which does need to be actually thought about and not a knee jerk reaction. The smallest chance of self defense is not something that is sacred, it's not an axiom.

A uesful thought experiment is would anyone support the outlawing of guns, but the legalising of carrying up to three grenades?

[Zwinmar]

Caliber isn't always the best indicator there.

I am aware of this, though I will admit such knowledge is rather limited all things considered if for nothing else then my lack of hands on experience in recent years.

Different rounds have different characteristics depending on what they are designed to do and even the barrel of the weapon (something to do with twists and shit, I don't know). Military grade ammo is going to perform differently from civilian grade ammo, especially ammo designed for hunting.

I would expect shooting like squirrels with a certain types of 5.56 ammo, especially those bullets designs to fragment, would be like playing Fallout with the Bloody Mess perk but not all. I know that FMJ rounds are bad for hunting especially with larger animals because they tend to "zip" through the animal doing minimal damage leaving it crawl away in pain. There tend to be special varmint hunting rounds people use to put down the animal humanly while not fucking up the pelt or the meat or rounds to just destroy the animal as quickly as possible at long range for smaller animals with little value in meat or fur like prairie dogs for many.

Military grade ammo from what I've heard is a bit of a mixed bag when it comes to different types. I know people both in hunting and combat have complained about the M855 having little stopping power, not yawing or fragmenting against thinner targets and having inconsistent performance. Its a poor hunting round and quite a few would argue it is a poor combat round, hence why the M855A1 was made.

Overly lethal ammo in the US as far as I know is already restricted or banned. Rounds like the armor piercing SS190 5.7 round is restricted to military and law enforcement sales only while "sporting" versions of the 5.7 round are not. Presumably this is the same with most ammunition.

All that aside, my point was the 5.56/.223 is generally not as powerful as many hunting rounds (with the exception of more exotic ammo types). .223 is considered a insufficient round for deer hunting by many and is possibly even restricted in deer hunting in some areas.

http://www.in.gov/activecalendar_dnr/Ev ... =syndicate
http://info.stagarms.com/blog/bid/38189 ... -Hunt-With

Its certainly not any more dangerous just by its ammunition then a "proper" hunting rifle is.

There's no such thing as ammunition (for long guns anyway) that won't fuck up whatever it hits.

There are beanbag rounds and simunition for shotguns and rifles that might hurt like a bitch but won't really fuck something up.

Yes I know, being a pedantic son of a bitch.

Here are a few points that you need clarified.

In many cases people use surplus military ammunition for both target practice and for hunting.

The 5.56/.223 rounds I would never use for hunting any kind of big game. They tumble upon impacting bone and could destroy the meat, this is not to mention that the low grain of the bullet has low stopping power but high wound potential. The military uses primarily a 'ball' round, which is lend encased in a 'full metal jacket' it does not fragment easily. Fragmentation rounds are found primarily in pistol rounds. You want the rounds to go through the animal, not spread out and do too much damage to the meat.

The Remington 700, in 30-06, is still used a military sniper rifle and also was the premier deer gun, though the .308 has very similar characteristics. My brother's .270 also makes for a good deer gun. Though I use a 12 gauge shotgun for hunting.

As for beanbag rounds, they can easily be lethal.

What it comes down to is you are spending too much time looking at video games, not real weapons. In many cases, especially pistol ammo, the civilian counterparts are far more lethal than what the military uses.

[Lord Revan]

Aren't full metal jacket rounds illegal for civilian use pretty everywhere in the western world though?

[MKSheppard]

Continuing the Evil NRA line from 1934:

NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT
HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SEVENTY-THIRD CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
H.R. 9066
APRIL 16, 18, AND MAY 14, 16, AND 16, 1934

MR. KEENAN. We will have a few words from General Allen about the matter of protests. We dislike to get into that subject about the protests, because we find that communications have been sent out from Washington by the National Rifle Association, in effect asking the members to bombard this committee with objections and showing a rather definite knowledge of the terms of the act as originally drawn, and making some representations which, we regret to say, we think are not in accordance with the facts of the case. We will have those to show the committee, if it is interested. I imagine the Congressman has not been here before today.

MR. ALLEN. Yes. sir; but if we can have the right to register guns, so that a man who has unregistered guns is thereby guilty of a felony, you are going to put, in my opinion, more gunmen and gangsters in jail than by anything that this committee can do. I have read the other bills by the Department of Justice, and I agree with the Attorney General, in his opinion, that this situation is not met by the other bills.

Many letters have been received by Congressman; they have spoken to me since I came to Washington. Many letters have been received from men who have written as sportsmen, and articles have appeared in the newspapers with respect to hunting being imperiled just because Dillinger bags a few sheriffs. I want to call the attention of the committee to the fact that letters were sent out by the National Rifle Association of America, in which it was stated that the officers in Washington will do all they can, but that—

A personal letter or telegram of yourself and every sportsman in America objecting to the bill is necessary if we are to wage a successful fight. With your help we killed the Copeland bill, but the committee thinks this one, H.R. 9066 is going to be harder to kill.

Then, in another resume of this bill, it was said that all of the restrictions which are proposed in House bill 9066, aimed at the pistol and revolver are almost worthless, as far as providing any real Federal control of firearms is concerned, that all guns, shotguns, and rifles, as well as pistols and revolvers, must be included in the Federal statute if it is to servo any useful purpose. “If not included, House bill 9066 is not worth the paper it is printed on, as a crime preventive measure. If they are included, the honest sportsmen in this country will rise up in arms as they did over the Copeland bill.” It is also said that the bill is undoubtedly presented in its present form, because there are fewer owners of pistols and revolvers than there are of shotguns and it is hoped in that way to get the law passed, and that once on the books the Attorney General can go to the next Congress and say that the firearms bill needs a slight amendment so it can be made to include any firearm and that---

Few Congressmen will have time to notice it and within a year after the passage of House bill 9066 every rifle and shotgun owner in the country will find himself paying a special tax and having himself fingerprinted and photographed for the Federal rogues gallery every time he buys or sells a gun of any description.

MR. HILL. Who is that from?

MR. ALLEN. The author of the letter is here, and it was signed by the National Rifle Association of America, home office Barr Building, Washington, D.C.

MR. COOPER. Who signed the letter?

MR. ALLEN. It is signed “Fraternally, National Rifle Association, C. B. Lister, Secretary-Treasurer.”

[Patroklos]

I would like to bring up a critical flaw in the 2nd Amendment that makes me support removing it from the Constitution, or at least revising it heavily. The 2nd Amendment was a product of it's time, and that time has long since past.

In 1789, the United States did not have a standing army. Most people were wary of standing armies due to the British occupation and felt that militias (citizen armies) were the way to go. As such, the 2nd Amendment was put into place to ensure that the government would not have the right to disarm the citizen armies in an attempt to gain power over them. The people would (in theory) rise up and put the government back in it's place. Well that's all fine and dandy, because back then it was possible to do so. Any professional army would have single-shot muskets or early rifles, flintlock pistols, and canons. Civilians would have much the same kind of gear (including canons which would be stored in community armories). So the idea of a citizen militia standing up against a hostile army (foreign or domestic) was not without merit.

<SNIP>

This is JV anti-gun whackery at its finest.

1.) If there is any message to be drawn from modern warfare since WWII, its that most weapons maintained for nation state warfare are inappropriate or down right counter productive when used in non-nation state warfare. This is a combiation of not being able to identify force concentrations that justify the cost of the weapons used and that most states are not willing to create the collateral damage such weapons caused couped with the effect that collateral damage has on enemy resistance.

2.) If there is a foreign invader inside the continental US, its safe to assume our standing military has already been defeated or at least severly degraded. If we still want to resist at that point for whatever reason, irregular forces are what we will have to do it with.

3.) In a civil war, most of the US military war machine will not work. Weapons like the F-22 have parts made in all lower 48 states. An Aegis weapons system needs near 24/7 technical and part support. Our military bases are spread throughout the US and the support needed from them is very interconnected and thus vunerable. Our military is operating on a technolgy level that requires an economy operating near uninterupted and on the highest level. It will move for a bit on inertia and depleting ready spares, and somewhat less through cannibalization, but it there is any major disruption of the delicate high tech industrial and operational support base a good portion of our arsenal will be useless. Nuclear wars last days if not hours. Non nuclear nation state conflicts weeks, if not days. Insurgencies? years, if not decades. Our military is not designed to fight that sort effort in a country anywhere near the scale of the US, and thats without considering the complications of fighting an insurgency HERE vice in Anywerehelsistan.

4.) Name me a civil war where the military remained 100% loyal to the government side. Even in places like Libya and Syria the military, which was the private reserve of a despot with zero limits on its use and specifically recruited from select demographics, had major defections and mutinies. Or they just holed up in their barracks to see which way the wind blows as in Libya. Now apply this to the army of a democracy made up of a pretty accurate cross section of the populous (that includes the rebellion portion) and is required by oath to disobey illegal orders. One that, not being used to acting as a brutal oppressive police force over its own people, isn't going to be to hot on fighting a local insurgencey. Yeah, its not looking good as far as having your high order conventional military function well against its own populous. As a military officer myself, of all the historical reasons for the government to wage war on its own people I can think of very few relative to the scenarios possible where I would in good concious do anything but ingore such orders or even actively resist them. This is a very good thing for our democracy.

Of course we can probably both think of scenarios where the issue at had will keep the military more coherent than not, but then the intent of the 2nd is to protect the people from any government oppression scenario not just the pet ones we like to come up with. If we are talking about one where even one percent of the popuation is onboard for thats three plus million people. Good luck with that.

[Broomstick]

The principal of de-escalating the weapons-race between criminals and the population relies on guns being difficult and expensive to get hold of. But I accept that wilderness areas will need them, that certain professions might require them and I'm on the fence regarding home defence. It's a clear and obvious force equaliser for you Broomy, and I'd like to say your situation is pretty extreme, but maybe it isn't.

I sum up my position regarding the 2nd Amendment as I like having the option, even if I've never actually owned a firearm. Guns really are an equalizer between fit males in their prime and everyone else. Of course, that also means "everyone else" can become just as dangerous and damaging as well as equally able to defend themselves. It is not an unmixed situation. A few years ago we had a frail, elderly mugger robbing people at the mall at gunpoint.

In the past, I have reacted to the neighborhood getting bad by moving. Unfortunately, that is not practical at this time. At one point in his youth my spouse explicitly owned handguns for self-defense while living in a rough neighborhood (that was before the de facto gun ban in Chicago), but when he moved away from there he sold his guns, no longer desiring to own them. Purchasing a gun was one option we looked into (as documented in this forum) but we have elected not to buy a shotgun at this time. I think it gets lost in the gun the debates that a lot of Americans choose not to own guns for a variety of reasons, may own guns for a time then go back to being gunless, and are basically NOT fanatically on either side of this debate but really do make thoughtful decisions as to whether or not to purchase a hazardous tool. There are multiple ways to protect yourself and most people I know who own guns utilize more than one and would prefer to never have to shoot another human being.

For that matter, one of the handful of people I've know who have actually shot someone chose NOT to use his firearms the last time someone physically threatened him - he used a piece of metal pipe even though he had two fully loaded guns in the cab of his truck at the time, both within as easy reach as the pipe. When the police inquired as to his choice of pipe vs. gun he stated that he didn't actually want to kill the guy, he just wanted to stop him. That's another example of guns being an option. Even if you're carrying one you're not obligated to use it. (Also very clearly self-defense - the whole confrontation was caught on surveillance camera, with my friend very clearly trying to shove the guy away, close the door of his truck, using fists to try to fight him off, then escalating to pipe-over-skull.)

But that type of rational gun owner doesn't make the news. I assure you that that sort is far, far more typical than the whackos featured by the media, because crazy people bring better ratings and sell more cornflakes.

Maybe just the majority of folks in areas like yours wouldn't hang out in circles that overlap with my internet nerdery, and my impression of america as 90% suburbs of spoiled white over-grown teenagers is biased by tv shows and reddit.

Yes, TV does have an unfortunate and distorting bias. The suburbs are a significant slice of the US, but not the whole of it. Things are very different in true urban areas and rural areas. For that matter, there are significant differences between blue-collar suburbs and upper-class suburbs. Regional differences, too. I remember back when the Japanese were getting involved in the Detroit auto industry the Japanese just could not wrap their heads around the local passion for deer-hunting season - you just couldn't schedule any meaningful meeting or work project during that time due the numbers of men heading off into the woods with guns. Absolutely baffling to newcomers that this fever infected even executives of major corporations. I don't think deer season was ever quite so entrenched in the Chicago area.

I know in the UK there are specialist funds for things like reinforced doors for people who have been the victim of hate crimes/vendettas ect, and I think that, as a principle, the steps should be 1) dealing with the source of the crime(hah!), 2) non-violent prevention that dosen't impinge on the possible victim, 3) de-escalating and insurance, 4)violent self defense.
Of course, you can prepare for all four steps, especially if the first three are ineffective and there's a significant residual risk.

There IS a reason why really bad neighborhoods in the US feature steel bars on all the windows.

Renters are somewhat hampered by the situation that they are limited in what modifications they can make to the property they live in. Then you have the US meme of self-reliance where it can be difficult to impossible to vote public funds for turning urban ghetto residences into small forts... but most ghetto families can scrape together the funds for a shotgun. Which, by the way, can be had for less money than reinforced doors, which has something to do with why the gun option is chosen as often as it is, it makes economic sense. Then there's the old trick of gluing razor blades to windowsills so if a thief tries to pull himself up to enter the window he gets his hands sliced up which has probably boosted sales of x-acto blades and superglue for decades in the big cities... really there are several ways to defend your home.

One of the appeals of a pump-action shotgun is that very distinctive noise it makes, the one that says "there is a gun here and someone is ready to use it" even from behind a closed door. Yelling "I have a gun and I'm willing to use it" through a door or window followed by that distinction krCHUNKchk! will tend to make anyone hesitate. It can discourage a home invader just as a large dog can, to the point that some people use recordings of that sound as a form of self defense along with sound clips of dogs barking or dummy video cameras or signs saying "Beware of Dog". Most of the bad guys don't want to get hurt and if you can convince them your home contains a vicious dog, loaded shotgun, and is documenting their actions they are much more inclined to go elsewhere - but that only works if it's plausible that you have a big dog, a video camera, or a loaded gun.

Realistically, most people, even in the most dangerous neighborhoods, use multi-layered defenses and don't just rely on guns.

The thing is, if I accept the use of shotguns ect for step 4. and it follows that said gun should be trained with and kept accessible and usable in a short time frame for it to fufill it's role, then along with the wilderness and professions, that's a shit ton of weaponry floating around the country and a criminal will not find it difficult to get hold of one.

Yes, as I said, not an unmixed blessing.

I've known people to utilize gun safes, who disable their guns outside of hunting season, who instead of leaving their guns in an empty home while they're away on business or vacation will leave them with trusted friends... there are ways to to make guns harder to steal.

Also, as recently demonstrated in Britain, it is possible for amateurs to make effective guns out of various common materials. It's not just that guns are common, knowledge about guns is common, too.

Is a situation where a criminal has a gun and the victim dosen't significantly worse than one where both do? It increases the chance of the criminal doing bad things at gunpoint, but it halves the chance of an accidental shooting of each other or a bystander. I guess it depends on the frequency of the 'doing bad things at gunpoint', which does need to be actually thought about and not a knee jerk reaction. The smallest chance of self defense is not something that is sacred, it's not an axiom.

It's a bit more complicated than that - how often does a criminal hesitate to target someone due to concerns that person might be armed? Guns aren't the only potential weapon, how does the possibility of a target fighting back change the equation? How would you even begin to research and quantify that? We do have statements from criminals that these things factor into who they pick as victims.

It also factors into people committing crimes - there have been people who have successfully robbed banks, mugged people, and even escaped from jail by using either unloaded, toy, or fake guns. All that was required was to convince the other party is was a real, loaded gun even though it wasn't. According to the FBI John Dillinger escaped from the Crown Point, Indiana jail by using a pistol carved from a potato, although some reports said it was carved from soap. My local sheriff department, still headquartered in Crown Point, doesn't really like being reminded of that, and rumor has it that this is why they invariably serve mashed instead of baked potatoes at the jail. They do still allow the prisoners soap.

Of course, there are some people who are just fucking stupid - there have been instances of morons trying to rob a gun store. I mean, holy fuck, if there is ONE place where the people inside the building are guaranteed to be armed...! Oddly enough, these situations do not usually end in a hail of bullets. What happens is that when the would-be thief sees the employees and customers draw and point at him he has a sudden attack of smarts and surrenders.

A uesful thought experiment is would anyone support the outlawing of guns, but the legalising of carrying up to three grenades?

Hmm.... nope. Grenades are even more liking to injury bystanders/damage property as their force expands globally from their detonation point. Guns and bullets can be aimed and more precisely direct damage, which makes it easier to limit collateral damage.