Worldwide gun control disscussion

[MKSheppard]

A significant amount of mass shooters purchased their weapons completely legally. The problem is high powered rifles are too easy to get.

You can legally target shoot with AR-15s in Montgomery County, Maryland, but you can't with common calibre hunting rifles. Try again.

Outside the urban area, a person must not discharge fixed ammunition from a rifle or pistol of any caliber higher than a .25 caliber, or discharge a full metal jacketed bullet of any caliber from any gun.

[MKSheppard]

ballistics do not work like they do in NCIS (or whatever).

Maryland recently stopped their "ballistic fingerprinting" law that required every handgun sold in MD to send a fired case to Maryland State Police for a ballistics database.

What happened was that like 5 or 6 years ago, the ballistics machine stopped working; and so MSP just started throwing the baggies sent in to them into 55 gallon drums.

[General Zod]

A significant amount of mass shooters purchased their weapons completely legally. The problem is high powered rifles are too easy to get.

You can legally target shoot with AR-15s in Montgomery County, Maryland, but you can't with common calibre hunting rifles. Try again.

Outside the urban area, a person must not discharge fixed ammunition from a rifle or pistol of any caliber higher than a .25 caliber, or discharge a full metal jacketed bullet of any caliber from any gun.

I don't know what you wrote has to do with anything I just said.

[MKSheppard]

^
What's the problem?

I'm just amused that everything about that study is all about their finding that:

For each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership, firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%

when they also found that:

• For each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of Black population, firearm homicide rate increased by 5.2%
• For each increase of 1/1,000 in violent crime rate, firearm homicide rate increased by 4.8%
• For each 0.01 increase in Gini coefficient, firearm homicide rate increased by 4.6%
• For each increase of 1/1,000 in nonviolent crime rate, firearm homicide rate increased by 0.8%
• For each increase of 1/10,000 in incarceration rate, firearm homicide rate decreased by 0.5%

I mean, when you drill into their results; what they're saying is that firearm ownership is ranked #4 out of 5 items in total that have influence on the firearms homicide rate; and that for every person you incarcerate, the firearms homicide rate drops?

Basically, they're saying that realistically uncorrectable factors (% of black population and % of firearms ownership) have about 10% effect on firearms homicides; while realistically correctable factors (violent crime rate, nonviolent crime rate, GINI coefficient, and incarceration rate) has about 10.7% effect on firearms homicide rate.

[MKSheppard]

I don't know what you wrote has to do with anything I just said.

AR-15s are .223 calibre.

Thus, under Montgomery County Law, they're legal to target shoot outside of the urban area on private property.

But all sorts of common hunting rifle calibres (.270, .30, .308) aren't.

High-powered, what?

[Elheru Aran]

I don't know what you wrote has to do with anything I just said.

AR-15s are .223 calibre.

Thus, under Montgomery County Law, they're legal to target shoot outside of the urban area on private property.

But all sorts of common hunting rifle calibres (.270, .30, .308) aren't.

High-powered, what?

The problem with you making an anecdotal observation about your local regulations is that they're *local*. If one has the scratch to legally purchase a firearm, odds are they have the scratch to make occasional short car rides to purchase and discharge said firearms outside a county which restricts caliber of said firearm.

Meanwhile inside said county, it's not going to stop citizens who aren't law-abiding.

It's also an illustration of how nitpicking terminology can cripple the discussion-- Zod apparently means 'high capacity' when he talks about 'high powered', while to gun-heads 'high powered' means 'large caliber' or some other definition.

[MKSheppard]

Again, Illinois is not some kind of closed-off Universe, and interstate gun trafficking is very common. Stuff like this happens all the time. More than two-thirds of guns used in crimes committed in New York and New Jersey, for example, were obtained from Southern states with more relaxed gun laws.

On May 20, 1965; in hearings in the U.S. Senate, Thomas J Dodd (D-CT) ranted about how Washington DC residents could simply walk or drive a few miles over to Maryland, where they could buy handguns without being subject to the strict gun control laws of the District of Columbia.

This was pre-1968; there was no Gun Control Act, no Federal Firearms License system, no restriction on interstate sales of handguns.

I guess the 1968 Gun Control Act and the 1993 Brady Bill sure fixed that problem of interstate purchases.

[General Zod]

I don't know what you wrote has to do with anything I just said.

AR-15s are .223 calibre.

Thus, under Montgomery County Law, they're legal to target shoot outside of the urban area on private property.

But all sorts of common hunting rifle calibres (.270, .30, .308) aren't.

High-powered, what?

What part of my post was specific to Montgomery County, exactly?

[MKSheppard]

It's also an illustration of how nitpicking terminology can cripple the discussion

Terminology is very important, specifically when it's used to ban or regulate something.

[MKSheppard]

What part of my post was specific to Montgomery County, exactly?

You said:

"The problem is high powered rifles are too easy to get."

The ARMALYTE 15 and KILLYSHNIKOV 74 are clearly not high powered when I can shoot them legally in the non-urban area of Montgomery County on private land, but I can't shoot common hunting calibres.

[General Zod]

What part of my post was specific to Montgomery County, exactly?

You said:

"The problem is high powered rifles are too easy to get."

The ARMALYTE 15 and KILLYSHNIKOV 74 are clearly not high powered when I can shoot them legally in the non-urban area of Montgomery County, but I can't shoot common hunting calibres.

So you're just nitpicking terminology? Who gives a shit? That's not my point.

[Elheru Aran]

It's also an illustration of how nitpicking terminology can cripple the discussion

Terminology is very important, specifically when it's used to ban or regulate something.

Granted, however when someone is concerned about a set in *general*, and uses imprecise terminology that is then nitpicked to pieces by the opposition in order to undercut the initial argument when the underlying point was valid and simply expressed badly, that's going to make things worse by frustrating one party and giving the other cause for arrogance.

Picking on Zod for using 'high powered' by taking it to mean 'large caliber' and using an anecdotal example from your locality isn't going to advance the argument in any significant way.

[Grumman]

So you're just nitpicking terminology? Who gives a shit? That's not my point.

Your point is fucking stupid. You're using the phrase "high-powered rifles" to describe unusually low-powered rifles.

[General Zod]

So you're just nitpicking terminology? Who gives a shit? That's not my point.

Your point is fucking stupid. You're using the phrase "high-powered rifles" to describe unusually low-powered rifles.

Again, I really don't give a shit about a few nitpicking twats that want to be purposefully obtuse because they can't stand the thought of not having their surrogate dicks.

[MKSheppard]

So you're just nitpicking terminology? Who gives a shit? That's not my point.

The ARMALYTE 15 is so high powered it barely just squeaks in at about 100+ joules above the Maryland minimum muzzle energy required to hunt with a centerfire rifle. (1,626J).

Meanwhile, it is known that in many parts of America, WEAPONS OF WAR, such as Turkish (7.92x57mm) Mausers are sold cheaply for about $200 dollars on the barrel.

Said WEAPONS OF WAR have 4,000+ J of energy.

Yet nobody talks about them.

Because, Fudds, something, second amendment, something, hunting.

[Broomstick]

Chicago has highly restrictive gun laws. Illinois does not.

FOID required to buy/possess guns and ammunition in Illinois. ISP will take away your FOID if you're fucky.

Try again.

And... how is owning a FOID "highly restrictive"? It just declares you passed a background check. For that matter, even a state like Indiana with what is considered very loose gun laws has licensing requirements for handguns similar to Illinois, and issues firearm ID's.

And if you're "fucky" maybe you SHOULD have your gun privileges restricted or revoked.

[MKSheppard]

And... how is owning a FOID "highly restrictive"?

When you have to wait 60+ days to get it.

For that matter, even a state like Indiana with what is considered very loose gun laws has licensing requirements for handguns similar to Illinois, and issues firearm ID's.

INDIANA

RIFLES & SHOTGUNS HANDGUNS
Permit to Purchase No No
Registration of Firearms No No
Licensing of Owners No No

ILLINOIS

RIFLES & SHOTGUNS HANDGUNS
Permit to Purchase FOID FOID
Registration of Firearms No No
Licensing of Owners FOID FOID
Permit to Carry No FOID

[Simon_Jester]

It's fair to say that while AR-15s are technically not 'high powered' in the sense of high muzzle energy per bullet, they are unusually dangerous rifles due to their high rate and volume of fire and the ease of carrying great masses of ammunition. Indeed, the AR-15 is a civilian version of a rifle the US military adopted precisely because using lower-powered cartridges that were easier to carry made for a weapon that was in many ways more dangerous.

So using 'high-powered' to mean 'highly dangerous' is hardly unusual or unreasonable. When Hunter S. Thompson referred to one of his friends as a "high-powered mutant," he wasn't necessarily referring to the man having an extra-energetic electric generator strapped to his back or anything.

However, at the same time, if we're going to make laws regarding specific classes of guns, we do need to be precise and rational in our choice of terms- that's a valid point. One of the biggest flaws in bans on 'assault weapons' and so on is that they fail to do this: either they are imprecise about what constitutes a dangerous weapon, or they make poor and irrational choices about what weapons get considered dangerous.

Correcting someone who uses imprecise terms is fair, but that doesn't invalidate their whole argument unless the argument was purely a semantic one.

...

Now, Zod's point might be more accurately rephrased as "mass shootings are more deadly because very nasty rifles are easy to get," where 'very nasty' is obviously an informal term referring to the overall ease of killing many people with the same weapon in a hurry.

Is this true, or false? We can address the argument on its own merits. For instance, we can point out:
1) Even without access to very nasty rifles, mass shooters can still kill many people, and other kinds of terrorists and madmen can kill in other ways (say, with large bombs, or with driving a vehicle into a crowd as just happened in Nice).
2) On the other hand, several high-profile mass shootings recently have involved nasty and highly dangerous rifles, enough to form a pattern, so we might want to at least consider if maybe they're too available.

[MKSheppard]

It's fair to say that while AR-15s are technically not 'high powered' in the sense of high muzzle energy per bullet, they are unusually dangerous rifles due to their high rate and volume of fire and the ease of carrying great masses of ammunition.

You realize you're making the case for banning tons of fudd sporterized hunting rifles due to their ease of being rapidly reloaded from stripper clips, and the rapid rate of fire that a Mauser-type action allows?

https://youtu.be/haf9QURxO4E

Or by the way, this is being used to talk about restricting lever action guns in Australia due to the controversy over the Adler A110 lever action shotgun over there.

[Broomstick]

And... how is owning a FOID "highly restrictive"?

When you have to wait 60+ days to get it.

Cry me a fucking river. Get one before you feel a need for a gun. No right is unlimited.

For that matter, even a state like Indiana with what is considered very loose gun laws has licensing requirements for handguns similar to Illinois, and issues firearm ID's.

INDIANA

RIFLES & SHOTGUNS HANDGUNS
Permit to Purchase No No
Registration of Firearms No No
Licensing of Owners No No

ILLINOIS

RIFLES & SHOTGUNS HANDGUNS
Permit to Purchase FOID FOID
Registration of Firearms No No
Licensing of Owners FOID FOID
Permit to Carry No FOID

Yeah, dumbshit, that's why I specified HANDGUNS. Learn to fucking read.

[MKSheppard]

Cry me a fucking river. Get one before you feel a need for a gun.

So you're okay with women being forced to wait up to 60 days before they can get a weapon for self defense?

No right is unlimited.

Funny, you should say that.

Yeah, dumbshit, that's why I specified HANDGUNS. Learn to fucking read.

LOLOLOL.

I'll break it down for you by eliminating rifles.

INDIANA

HANDGUNS
Permit to Purchase No
Registration of Firearms No
Licensing of Owners No

ILLINOIS

HANDGUNS
Permit to Purchase FOID
Registration of Firearms No
Licensing of Owners FOID
Permit to Carry FOID

You need a FOID to even purchase or own a handgun in Illinois. Indiana? You don't need anything unless you intend to carry it concealed.

EDIT: To carry a concealed pistol in Illinois, you need the FOID on top of a concealed carry permit.

[Broomstick]

Cry me a fucking river. Get one before you feel a need for a gun.

So you're okay with women being forced to wait up to 60 days before they can get a weapon for self defense?

I'm not OK with untrained people buying weapons. Frankly, I'd like to see required training before anyone can purchase their first gun.

No right is unlimited.

Funny, you should say that.

I didn't say that, the Supreme Court of the US has said that. Your rights end where someone else's begins. You are not allowed to exercise your rights in such a manner as to endanger others, whether that's yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater or not being able to shoot other people outside of self-defense.

Yeah, dumbshit, that's why I specified HANDGUNS. Learn to fucking read.

LOLOLOL.

>snip<

I'll break it down for you by eliminating rifles.
You need a FOID to even purchase or own a handgun in Illinois. Indiana? You don't need anything unless you intend to carry it concealed.

Bullshit. Check your sources. Whether open carry or concealed you need a license to carry a handgun in Indiana, and you can wait up to 15 days for said license.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, since our friend Shep has decided to myopically focus on the city of Baltimore and Maryland-related gun control laws without providing a shred of context, here's a heat map that shows U.S. states sorted by gun deaths, colored by the types of gun control laws in those states. As any reasonable person already knows, and has been stated numerous times in this thread by the members of this board with actual intelligence, gun violence is a really complicated issue, touching a myriad of almost intractable social, political, economic, and historical issues in the U.S... That said, Shep is being disingenuous at best when he just says "lol Baltimore" as if that nullifies the broader trend. There are plenty of good arguments to be had (and are being had in this thread already) about correlation vs. causation, and how to actually interpret this trend, but categorically refusing to listen to any other evidence by picking at an extreme outlier case is just an irritating waste of time.

[Channel72]

Chicago has highly restrictive gun laws. Illinois does not.

FOID required to buy/possess guns and ammunition in Illinois. ISP will take away your FOID if you're fucky.

Try again.

Which means nothing, since most criminals in Chicago get their guns from Wisconsin and Indiana.

[TheFeniX]

2) On the other hand, several high-profile mass shootings recently have involved nasty and highly dangerous rifles, enough to form a pattern, so we might want to at least consider if maybe they're too available.

The civilian AR-15 has been available for purchase since the 60s. It's recent popularity didn't just come out of a vacuum. So what happened?

Price dropped and availability went up. That said, remove it and what are mass killers left with? Multiple other guns that are functionally the same yet might cost a bit more. Fact is, the AR-15 is functionally the same as something like the Mini-14 (which has been around since the 70s). They both accept the same mags. We go after them to? Any rifle that can accept a mag? Maybe they swap to something like the CX4 which accepts standard 92FS mags, which can come in 30 rounds. Or, like the Columbine kids, they look at the Hi-Point with 15-round mags and they just reload because no one is shooting back at them.

You talk about the AR-15 like it's this magical weapon, way above the destructive capabilities of other firearms. It's just not. Your average criminal does not bother with them. Only one specific subset of criminals seems to lean on them and it's really asinine to believe that not being able to lean on them will somehow stop the bloodshed, or even reduce it.

You could possibly make the argument that lower mag capacities would lower the body count, but you can't even guarantee that because mass-killers, like criminals, seem to alter their methods based on what tools are available to supply them the largest body count. For Americans, this mean guns with hi-ammo capacity. All your government lets you have is a knife? Go stab a bunch of toddlers. Or maybe, and after just going to a 4th of July celebration and thinking "I hope some idiot doesn't run the barricade and kill a bunch of people because Houston drivers are D-U-M, DUM, dealing with the scary shit of someone just driving a truck through a crowd.

This fight isn't about the weapon or the method. It's about identifying the at risk people and doing something about them before they can go for a gun, knife, truck, bomb, whatever. Because just accepting the possibility of a lower body count by banning hi-capacity weapons is the chicken-shit way out of it.