10 dead in mass shooting at California dance hall

[beschizza]

Originally published at: 10 dead in mass shooting at California dance hall | Boing Boing

…

[Mindysan33]

Not like my opinion matters, but I’m sick of this…

[euansmith]

FFS 36 Mass Shootings in 23 days.

[gracchus]

Cobray M11 9mm semi-automatic […] This style of firearm is designed to take 30-round magazines that allow for rapid fire without having to frequently change magazines.

Tell us why or for what purpose any civilian should be able to have access to this weapon, ammosexuals.

[tcg550]

This person explains it and it’s nuts.

What’s the point of a 9mm handgun that’s this big? When compared side by side to a Glock, it’s impossible to find any advantage. The Glock is smaller, light, and more efficient and effective. The Cobray M11/9 is too big to conceal, even with a flush-fitting magazine, and too uncomfortable to carry.

At 3.5 pounds, it’s a boat anchor, or at least it makes a good impression of one. Why is it so big? Well, it’s designed to be a small submachine, not a big pistol. In a perfect world, this would have an open bolt and a stock, and I’d be spraying 1,200 rounds per minute. However, as long as the ATF and NFA exist, that isn’t going to happen.

He concludes he owns it because it’s fun.

The Most Useless Gun I Own: The Cobray M-11/9 - The Mag Life

[gracchus]

@tcg550

He concludes he owns it because it’s fun.

At least he’s honest about his stupid and childish reason. Usually selfish dweebs like this go to great lengths to avoid admitting that they want the ability to own them because they’re fun, make them feel like the hero in an '80s action movie, are collector’s items, etc.

[Mister44]

Notes:

1. The M-11 (all Mac type derivatives) are banned in CA under their AWB. Though being in his 70s, he could have bought it 20+ years ago and grandfathered it in.

2. Magazines are restricted to 10 rounds in CA. 30 round magazines are illegal. See above.

3. While mean looking, the ubiquitous Glock 17 with an illegal 30 round magazine would have the exact same capabilities (probably considerably more accurate).

4. The reason these were popular in the 80s-90s with gangs and the like, and one reason they are on the AWB in CA, is they used to be an open bolt design, and it didn’t take too much to make them into an illegal machine gun. Later versions were made closed bolt to reduce this possibility.

[Brainspore]

@Mister44

Magazines are restricted to 10 rounds in CA.

It’s almost as if we need some kind of national action to curb the supply of deadly firearms instead of a patchwork of marginally effective regional restrictions.

[Shuck]

I read he was looking for his (ex?) wife - domestic violence/violent misogyny being a commonality in mass killings…

@euansmith

“…a poorly written constitutional amendment that refers to barely functioning muskets…”

Reading about the history of guns in early America is really fascinating, because it’s even worse than that. When the amendment was written, guns and everything about them were really expensive, as everything, including the lead for shots, had to be imported from Europe at great cost. As a result, most individuals simply couldn’t afford guns or even any quantity of lead shot. So those “well regulated militias” weren’t so much private gun owners as they were people who owned guns that were bought/subsidized by state entities for their use in local defense. The whole meaning of that amendment would have been very clear to people at the time, but it’s been twisted beyond all recognition by subsequent events even before we get into the nuttiness of interpretations that just… ignore most of the words.

[gracchus]

@Brainspore

It’s almost as if we need some kind of national action to curb the supply of deadly firearms instead of a patchwork of marginally effective regional restrictions.

Don’t you understand? Somewhere out there in The Heartland a Real American™ needs to know he can own a weapon like this (thousands of which are floating around the U.S. and can be apparently be bought for about $300-400 each).

And besides, the responsible gun owner in this case lived in California where the weapon is banned. Since their law isn’t 100% effective, applying it to the entire country wouldn’t be either, so why do it at all? That’s logic!

[/s just in case]

[orenwolf]

@Mister44

• The M-11 (all Mac type derivatives) are banned in CA under their AWB. Though being in his 70s, he could have bought it 20+ years ago and grandfathered it in.
• Magazines are restricted to 10 rounds in CA. 30 round magazines are illegal. See above.

That’s interesting. So gun control in this case did not work to prevent this tragedy (either because it was exempted, or because it was likely purchased elsewhere.)

That suggests that only national regulation will close those loopholes (and even then, they’re going to trickle in from the borders, as regularly happens in Canada).

[DukeTrout]

@tcg550

He concludes he owns it because it’s fun.

[DukeTrout]

@orenwolf

So gun control in this case did not work to prevent this tragedy (either because it was exempted, or because it was likely purchased elsewhere.)

California doesn’t even need an Iron Pipeline because it’s surrounded by states with laxer gun restrictions. If Measure 114 passes, at least Oregon will have similar restrictions. That leaves Nevada and Arizona.

@orenwolf

That suggests that only national regulation will close those loopholes (and even then, they’re going to trickle in from the borders, as regularly happens in Canada).

The US has a net outgoing gun trade, even if you leave out legal gun sales and export. Especially with Mexico, so much so that the Mexican government has sued the US for causing so much violence there. 70 percent of firearms recovered in Mexico came from the US. It’s estimated that 200,000 guns per year are illegally trafficked to Mexico from the US.

[Mister44]

@orenwolf

That’s interesting. So gun control in this case did not work to prevent this tragedy (either because it was exempted, or because it was likely purchased elsewhere.)

So there are two likely ways he got this specific gun.

1. He, or someone he knew and had access to, already owned it before the CA AWB took effect. Current firearms owned when the ban went into effect were grandfathered in. Same with magazines.

2. He illegally bought it either in CA or out of state.

You can not go to another state and buy a pistol. It has to be transferred to an FFL in the state you live in. In this case, you couldn’t buy THAT pistol because CA considers it an AW.

He could have purchased it from a private seller out of state ILLEGALLY, who didn’t know about the law, or just didn’t care (i.e. the black market). Private sales for pistols have to be between two people from the same state, or it has to go through an FFL.

However, these things run ~$1000-1500. You can get a Glock or similar handgun from a store in CA for <$500. I don’t know why you spend 2-3x as much of an inferior firearm that you would have to source illegally, when you could get something better legally. Which is why, IMO, it is likely he already had it (or someone he knew had it).

Magazines are not regulated items Federally, so he could have found larger magazines traveling out of state.

@orenwolf

That suggests that only national regulation will close those loopholes

Firearm wise, if the M11 and other Mac like firearms were all banned nationally, it wouldn’t make a difference in this case. Every double stack semiautomatic handgun on the market will shoot as fast, and in general, more accurately and reliably than the M11. The M11 looks scary, and like I said above, was targeted by the AWB because originally it was easier for criminals to make it full auto. But as a semi-automatic pistol, banning it would have zero effect because literally nearly every modern semi-automatic pistol has better capabilities.

A national MAGAZINE ban for magazines over 10 rounds would perhaps hinder an attacker who did not already have larger capacity magazines.

[tcg550]

@Mister44

Every double stack semiautomatic handgun on the market will shoot as fast, and in general, more accurately and reliably than the M11.

So ban those.

You sound just like the people that are against any single covid mandate, if a single mandate doesn’t solve the entire problem the people against those mandates won’t do it.

But, if you add them all together it starts to make a difference.

So no, banning one particular gun won’t solve the problem but banning them all including large magazines will start to make a dent. It will take years to see a difference but if we start now maybe our grand kids or great grand kids can go to school without active shooter drills.

[anon85524460]

@Mister44

He could have purchased it from a private seller out of state ILLEGALLY, who didn’t know about the law, or just didn’t care (i.e. the black market). Private sales for pistols have to be between two people from the same state, or it has to go through an FFL.

One of the things I learned when going back home to take care of mom, and getting all her guns in one stack, back in a state in the south that has permitless carry… is that the new thing is to not ask ANYTHING about who you’re selling the gun to. If they have cash, the transfer goes. It’s not an illegal sale there to sell to someone who is from another state if you didn’t ask, and there’s zero background investigation, permitting, etc. So the “in thing” people do is they don’t ask if there’s a felony, or anything. They just ask for the money, hand over the gun, and leave.

It does not require a firearms license of any type to sell there either.

So … yeah. That’s why Mom had so many guns, and why so many guns sneak over the border to Mexico ,too, I imagine. Because if you don’t ask, you don’t know.

[DukeTrout]

@Mister44

Firearm wise, if the M11 and other Mac like firearms were all banned nationally, it wouldn’t make a difference in this case.

That’s the Nirvana Fallacy, writ large. There are 17 people and their families who right now wish that firearm didn’t exist.

[gracchus]

Is it too much to ask for originality from the gun strokers?

@gracchus

That goes to another tactic we’ve seen here a lot, the Nirvana Fallacy of Gun Control.*

Claim: [Proposed gun control measure] won’t be 100% effective in reducing [negative outcome(s)], therefore we shouldn’t do it at all.

ETA: people who use this tactic sometimes come up with weird theoretical edge-case scenarios to support it.

[* Pedants will call this a perfect solution fallacy, but this has a nice ring to it]

[Mister44]

@tcg550

So ban those.

You sound just like the people that are against any single covid mandate, if a single mandate doesn’t solve the entire problem the people against those mandates won’t do it.

OH no, I know some people aren’t against a wider ban. I am explaining why focusing on a narrow group of uncommon weapons most likely would not have changed things when there is an alternative that is still legal and is actually a better firearm and more readily available.

It would be like banning one flavor of Mt Dew and expect that to effect diabetes rates.

@tcg550

So no, banning one particular gun won’t solve the problem but banning them all including large magazines will start to make a dent.

Yes.

@anon85524460

One of the things I learned when going back home to take care of mom, and getting all her guns in one stack, back in a state in the south that has permitless carry… is that the new thing is to not ask ANYTHING about who you’re selling the gun to. If they have cash, the transfer goes. It’s not an illegal sale there to sell to someone who is from another state if you didn’t ask, and there’s zero background investigation, permitting, etc. So the “in thing” people do is they don’t ask if there’s a felony, or anything. They just ask for the money, hand over the gun, and leave.

It does not require a firearms license of any type to sell there either.

So it sounds like you are describing private sales between people. I am not sure if you are describing how your mom got them, and/or how you got rid of them - but yes, the seller can’t KNOWINGLY sell to either a prohibited person or someone from out of state. Some people take zero precautions, some people want to at least see a Drivers licenses to confirm their state or a CCL. But yes, if it is a face to face private sale, you don’t need any special licenses (exceptions being things on the NFA).

I don’t know from your message if you already sold off your moms guns, or just gathered them up, but if you want to reduce the chance of them falling into the hands of someone nefarious, sell them to an FFL. You will get less for it, but any time they buy a gun, it has to be logged in their books and they have to run a background check to sell it. OR you can sell them via consignment, where they take a cut of the price it sells at. But since they are in possession of the firearm, it has to be logged in their books, and either given back to the original owner, or run a NICS check to the new buyer.

I’d actually be OK with background checks for private sales, at least for center fire handguns, but they should have like a NICS app where you can run the check yourself and get an approval code. This would cut down on people selling guns to felons unwittingly. Though good ol’ boys and criminals are still going to just sell guns behind the system’s back. (But again, it would make a dent in sales to prohibited persons.)

@DukeTrout

That’s the Nirvana Fallacy, writ large.

The nirvana fallacy is the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives.Under this fallacy, the choice is not between real world solutions; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic achievable possibility and another unrealistic solution that could in some way be “better”.

The perfect solution fallacy is a related informal fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented.

It isn’t the Nirvanna fallacy because buying a better and cheaper alternative that are legal in CA and lining cases at gun stores is neither unrealistic nor idealized. (Nor an edge case) The idea that one model/type of firearm being unavailable would have prevented this when there are 100s of better more common models available is the unrealistic solution.

I contend that is isn’t the perfect solution fallacy because I am taking a pragmatic, real world point of view, not some hypothetical edge case where you can wheedle into the gaps of the armor. It isn’t that the effect is minor, it is that I can’t see it having any effect at all due to the reasons listed above.

(NOTE - I do agree the ban on that style of firearm DOES reduce the availability of illegally converted machine guns. So I would agree the ban has a positive effect, but that is not relevant to this specific event.)

Is there name for a fallacy where “We did something, so it MUST have had SOME desired effect?”

If I had said that CA’s AWB and magazine ban didn’t work and is therefore useless, you could rightly accuse me of that. But I concede that it hinders and restricts access to these items.

And I will reiterate, this weapon WAS banned under CA’s laws and there isn’t evidence at this point that he got it out of state. If that holds true, then a national ban would still not have effected this event, as per @orenwolf 's original statement, as that loophole was not exploited.

[Melizmatic]

This is utterly sickening, as is the never ending defense of “guns over all.”