That’s a good point, and you’ll notice a none of the good guys with guns set are up in arms about domestic violence.
And even that still pales in comparison to suicides. A huge proportion of gun deaths and injuries in the US. Especially with handguns are suicides.
Like I said narrowly focusing on we’ll ban x gun cause y crime upsets us is the wrong way to look at this. Guns aren’t dangerous because some times “bad guys” get their hands on them. Guns are just fucking dangerous. And dangerous things crave regulation.
The “I suspect” was in that sentence for a reason; I don’t have the stats to hand.
Most of what shows up on a quick Google is about relative risk factors of domestic violence homicide between households with and without guns, or the correlation between domestic violence and mass shooters.
Ok fair enough. Though some people use that sort of phrasing less because they are speculating, and more of “I know what you will find.” (think something Sherlock would say).
If you look up annual police or crime reports of some major cities, you can find PDFs of various cities who break down their crime stats way more than general FBI stats do including domestic violence. Milwaukee, St Louis, Chicago, Los Angeles - those 4 off the top of the head I know I’ve found. If you have interest and can’t find them, LMK and Ill dig them up. A lot of time they are on the city government pages and can be tough to find organically. IIRC “annual crime report cityname” is a good search term.
Interesting aside: I know someone who works for a company that makes ‘manmarker’ rounds- essentially, ammunition that allows a military rifle to fire paintball-type projectiles so soldiers can train with their actual weapon. From what he tells me, they use the standard primer (or possibly an extra-large primer) and no powder for propulsion. A ball of wax and dye, propelled by that, will hurt but not seriously injure.
Bear in mind that the British Army SA80 infantry rifle is 5.56mm (.223") calibre (not sure how it’s chambered, though). A little more effective than .22LR, to my mind.
The internal combustion engine is more akin to the self-contained bullet cartridge, which allows for semi-auto functionality but does not necessarily imply it. I’m not sure what automotive analogy would work for semi-auto functionality in rifles, perhaps some future tech that allows a car to run over a pedestrian, automatically back up quickly and run over another one? Although that sounds more like a tool of war than one for the “modern sporting” set.
Actually, that was part of one of the decisions. Ya canna doo eet, Captain. It is functionally the same as banning the gun, because it makes it difficult or impossible to use the legal gun in a legal way.
And now I am going to say something that you and a lot of other people are not going to want to hear:
Trying to ban guns or ammo without rescinding the 2nd Amendment is not just constitutionally impossible and politically stupid, it is also wrong-headed. There are 350 million plus guns and 100 million plus gun owners in the U.S. And the percentage of either guns or gun owners that are involved in gun violence against an innocent person is a rounding error to zero. Literally.
There ARE two sides to this story. Almost all gun owners are responsible owners, and don’t like school shootings or gun violence on innocent people being shot any more than you or I. And they have rights. And they vote. And they don’t appreciate being mischaracterized or insulted or called names or being accused of shit they don’t do. And they also don’t like people trying to take their legal possessions away.
Right now there are a lot of people with extreme and uncompromising and uninformed positions on both sides of the gun issue. There are folks on the left who just want to ban things they cant ban, and there are folks on the right who oppose anything and everything that has to do with gun regulation. What most of these folks are not really interested in is looking at things differently, or listening sincerely, or really educating themselves on the issues and digging into data, or talking to people across the aisle. Which is really unfortunate for two reasons.
Gun violence is a hard problem to fix in the U.S. The chances of rescinding the 2nd Amendment is virtually zero, at least for the next 50 years I would guess. So, we HAVE to operate within that framework. We ain’t going to solve anything without both sides talking to each other, respecting each other’s positions, and coming up with mutually agreeable solutions.
and, more importantly for me, at least:
Most of those 100 million gun owners vote. The Republicans groom them as voters, they woo them, they instill fear and anger in them. And what do we on the left do? We alienate them, treat them like idiots, never ask their opinions. We don’t respect them, we don’t try to work with them. etc etc
And what an idiotic political strategy that is. Most gun owners are hunters. Who protects hunting habitat? Democrats, that’s who. Who is working against global warming? Democrats, that’s who. Who do gun owners tend to vote for? Republicans, that’s who.
100 million voters alienated against Democrats because all they hear is that Democrats want to take their guns away. Can we take their guns away? No. No, we can not. That is what this thread is about. Imagine if, instead of shouting to take their guns or their bullets away, we worked to find common ground with them. Worked to make them vote Democrat for legitimate reasons instead of voting Republican for bullshit reasons.
You might not want to hear this, but:
• Your 100 million number is made up.
• It’s not just Democrats who are horrified and disgusted by the 246 mass shootings committed so far in 2018. Human beings across the board think that common-sense gun control is a no-brainer. That trying to keep weapons that make it very easy to kill people out of the hands of people who want to commit mass murder makes sense.
• And, frankly, with every mass shooting, the general disgust, across the board, against anyone who owns guns grows. I don’t care how “responsible” anyone is. Guns carry a rising stigma, and AR-15s are the symbol of Sandy Hook, of Parkland, etc. If I were a gun owner, I wouldn’t care about political expediency. I’d strive to not be associated with school shootings. Extending responsibility by finding ways to keep these weapons out of the wrong hands would seem to be the furthest thing from idiocy.
I mean that in context (which you removed). Of course I care about how responsible people are. What I don’t care about is people using that as an excuse to say “we shouldn’t do anything” or “banning any kind of gun is impossible and political suicide”. The responsible behavior of a minority of citizens who own machines made for killing is not an excuse to keep them in the hands of anyone who wants them.
The problem I’m seeing is that there aren’t any. When Obama suggested simple, common-sense ways to register guns and do background checks, the NRA freaked out. Even the simplest, gentlest gun control ideas have the “100 million” screaming that the liberals want to take their guns. When that happens again and again, and the NRA becomes more and more of a literal terrorist organization, “well, maybe we should take their guns away” sounds like a common sense solution.
There are lots of gun laws in place right now. the whole idea that unrestricted gun ownership is a thing that exists, or that people want, is a fantasy.
When someone says that they support “sensible, common-sense restrictions” on guns, they are using the phrase in exactly the way religious extremists use it to refer to “common sense” restrictions on abortion. everyone involved knows the phrase is used as part of an overall strategy. If those common sense restrictions are passed, new ones will follow immediately.
Ya but it’s the NRA and Republicans saying that, not Democrats. Be careful not to step onto that same slippery slope that they love so much.
Edit: And as if on cue, @ArchStanton comes along to provide a perfect example of the slippery slope fallacy. Oh those, scheming people who just want reasonable controls on killing machines, such lying, scheming scoundrels they be!
And, judging by the several hundred mass murders committed by guns this year, those gun laws are working just fine, yes? The idea is to find ways to reduce the chances of these weapons getting in the hands of people who, by no reasonable measure, should pass background checks. We’re failing at that miserably.
That’s incorrect, sorry. What I’m talking about are ways to do ordinary background checks, register gun owners, close loopholes, raise the purchasing age – you know, simple things that most Americans support. But hey, feel free to call me an extremist for thinking such things.
The relevant information here isn’t how deadly automatic weapons are, it’s how much more profit the gun maker reaps by including automatic features. Let’s see those numbers!
Uh yeah. I posted a photo comparing the two above, and roughly described the functional difference. Its not “a little more effective”. Its an entirely different class of bullet.
5.56 nato is not the same round as .223 remington. The bullets are roughly the same size, close in weight and about the same shape. The major difference is there is more powder behind the 5.56.
5.56 ammunition and guns (especially ar-15s) are available to civilians in the United States. But they’re less common. And less popular. The usually cited reason is cost. .223 is close enough while being dirt cheap and easy to find.
You do know how its chambered. For 5.56 nato. Like all nato member rifles of the sort.
Chamber refers the bit of the gun where the round is crammed for firing. It contains the pressures of the exploding propellant and holds/feeds the bullet into the barrel.
“chambered” in this context means which caliber and size of ammunition the chamber and barrel are designed to accomidate.
And if 1/3 of americans were reliable voters for the GOP purely on the issue of guns. Our election turnout would not sit around 50%.
We wouldn’t see elections decided by plurality, or close to it. And we wouldnt have seen two GOP presidents in a row take office despite losing the popular vote. That would be the single largest and purest voting block in American history.
The gun owners who vote are in large part rigidly ideological, motivated, and single issue voters. But most gun owners, like most Americans. Don’t vote regularly.
And when polled on the issues themselves. On specific policy. In neutral language the vast majority of both gun owners and NRA members support increased fire arms regulation.
There are plenty of left wing and Democratic gun owners as well. Including several prominant politicians. And multiple commenters here.
Right. Because the debate is not about what to do. The debate is between a small, powerful “no never” crowd. And everyone else. The NRA/GOP 2nd ammendment block is not just opposed to specific policies, or gun control hardliners. They’re opposed to any and all policies or parties that touch on gun ownership (or more importantly gun sales) at all. Even GOP members, other gun owners, other firearms advocacy and sporting organizations, gun manufactures developing safety features, firearms and outdoor press that even loosely mention regulation.
It’s not a fight about what to do, or even if something should be done. Its a fight about whether we’re even allowed to have the discussion.
You laugh but we have. “Automatic knife” refers to switch blade and other spring loaded opening knives. And they’re banned in most states. “Semi-automatic” refers to spring assisted knives that skirt those bans by requiring some token opening movement beyond pushing a button or switch to get the same functionality. And they’re starting to get banned or restricted.
Actual requirements for training and safety, proper storage and transport…
