🔫 Firearms: Everything you wanted to know (and the opportunity to ask if you don't)

[Wanderfound]

@MikeTheBard

Well, that’s the thing- Rate of fire for a semi-auto is going to be more or less as fast as someone can pull the trigger, regardless of whether it’s a 9mm handgun, an AR-15, or something you would clearly recognize as a perfectly legitimate hunting rifle like a Savage 64.

But accurate rate of fire includes a factor you neglected to mention: recoil and controllability. Which is precisely what the AR-15 is optimised for.

[Mister44]

@Otherbrother

In your opinion, are there important, plausible, non-hobby related uses for such a weapon that could not be accomplished with another type of weapon that’s less suited to killing large numbers of people? (For example, a weapon that does not have a large capacity or detachable magazine.)

I am a bit confused what you are asking. If I didn’t answer your question, please clarify it for me.

The non-hobby use, which some people feel is the most important reason for the right, is defense. Both personal and if there is ever another major revolt or civil war in the US. I would say that is an important reason.

Look, I think the chances of something like the Nazis, or Stalin, or Pol Pot ever happening in the US is pretty darn slim. But at the same time, these and other horrible things happened not that long ago. They are still happening in some places like the Middle East and the Balkans in the 90s.

But let’s just back up a second about the concern of how dangerous AR15s are. Please consider this: Almost NO ONE in the US is being killed by AR15s. Yes, I know, you can point out some specific, horrible events like Newton. But this is really where we need to look at the numbers and urge some rational thought. When an air plane crashes, it is a HORRIBLE event. Hundreds of lives snuffed out in fire and twisted metal. But, once one looks at the stats you can see that flying, despite the occasional horrible accident, is safer than driving.

I am going to get better stats on this, but back of the napkin looks like this. The FBI stats show 248 homicide deaths by rifles in 2014. That is ALL rifles, not just assault rifles, but includes lever actions, bolt action, etc. That means 3.05% of gun homicides are committed with rifles. I am even going to take the 1959 homicides where the gun was not specified, and take 3% of that number and add 60 to the total, for total of 308 rifle homicides in 2014. (Again ALL rifles, not just assault rifles.)

By comparison 1567 were killed by knives etc, 435 by blunt objects, and 660 were beaten to death by fists and feet. And according to a USA article, on average 450 children are murdered by their parents each year.

Now really, when you look at the REALITY of homicides, assault weapons kill less people than pistols, shotguns, knives, clubs, fists, and parents.

So maybe that helps shed light on why I don’t buy into the hand wringing worry that we need to ban these evil devices for the children.

@Otherbrother

Regardless of exactly where you draw this line, what do you personally tell a fellow gun enthusiast who passionately argues for legalization of a weapon that you feel is just too dangerous and unnecessary for the general public to be allowed to own?

Well I am horrible person to ask this, because my limits are probably higher than most peoples. I guess my line would be explosives, but at the same time in the 1700 and 1800s the rich owned canons and loaned them out or commanded them at times of war. Though possibly the exploding shells were regulated, I am not sure. Though, ironically, today muzzle loading black powder cannons require no paper work to buy and use, unlike a .22lr target rifle. (With solid projectiles.)

But again, per my info above, I don’t think any of the weapons currently legal are too dangerous to own.

Do you or someone you know have a fast car or motorcycle? Do you constantly drive them at unsafe speeds and endanger other people? Would you support a law banning cars that can go over say 90mph? I mean, no one NEEDS to go that fast unless they are on a private track. What about motorcycles? I mean there really is zero reason to own one. Nothing you can do in a motorcycle on the road you can’t do better and safer in a car. Even cyclists who drive safely endanger themselves because they lack protection from collisions. I mean, all of that is true, right? But I am not a hypocrite and suggest that we should ban more dangerous vehicles just because I don’t use them.

@MikeTheBard

, but first, you need to understand the reason that the AR-15 is so popular.

The popularity of the AR15 has exploded. It went from a “What do you need THAT for?” to “What do you mean you don’t own an AR-15?”

Honestly, I think the Assault Weapon ban in the 90s did more for the PR of the AR than anything else. People who had NO interest in owning one before, now wanted one. Every time there is talk of a ban there is a spike in sales and shortages. People who would probably keep saying, “Maybe I will get one some day.” end up getting one during a panic. Yes, you can blame the NRA for some of that. I concede that point. But the interest in them goes way past the NRA, because you have millions buying them who aren’t NRA members and aren’t reading NRA materials. My nugget of wisdom is, “Nothing makes an American want something more than to tell him he can’t have it.”

So because of this, A LOT of people who own ARs just have them sitting in the closet or safe collecting dust because they are casual users or even the “I have a gun” type.

While the AWB generated interest, what has really made the AR-15 take off is the modular rail system, and like a 1000 different companies now making parts for it. The AR already had a modular design, but like in the 1980s they all pretty much looked identical. The M-4 design adopted by the military included a flat top receiver that allowed easy use of optics as well as traditional iron sights. The rail system allowed one to add accessories such as lights or bipod easily. Different stocks could be added to adjust the length or provide better ergonomics.

You can only shoot gun at certain times at certain places. Depending where you live, you might have to go an hour or more away. Half the time it is too hot or cold. I can’t think of another hobby similar, but paintball is a lot like firearms in that many owners like to tinker and swap out parts. I am sure there are others, but anyway, the point is you can buy after market parts for just about every single part of the AR-15, from the large parts like the barrel or rail, right down to springs and the lower receiver pins. This allows one to enjoy their hobby on a different level. I guess it would like car enthusiasts enjoying working a wrench or detailing the interior as much as they like to drive or race it around.

And the third reason it took off is because - people found out how much fun they were. Most people, even gun owners, though they were something only for Rambo wannabes, shooting from the hip. But once they tried them they figured out, shit, this is fun. The AR found traditional niches in target shooting and hunting, but then it made its own niches with action shooting, plate shooting, etc. It would have been similar to the pistol sports, only now you could shoot much further ranges.

@Otherbrother

A bolt-action rifle designed to take down a bull moose could clearly kill an individual human just as dead as an AR type, no disagreement there.

I am not sure if you are really making the “designed” argument or not, but I just want to address it.

It bugs the hell out of me.

First off the, the bolt action rifle was designed for war. It was top of the line at one point, and later adopted but hunters (who were using breech loaders mainly up to that point).

But beyond that, yes, I concede guns are made to kill things, but the overwhelming majority aren’t used to hurt anything, especially people. Even the ones marketed for tactical and defense end up just punching paper and steel. So the the whole “designed for one purpose” just simply doesn’t hold water when you open your eyes and see that almost NO ONE in the US is using them to kill people. The high profile cases are anomalies, not status quo.

Swords and knives were made to kill people and cut flesh. But rarely have I seen someone turn their nose in up disgust and mutter, “Ugh, swords. Those are made for one thing - killing.”

@Otherbrother

Is it your contention that the firing rate, capacity, and ease of reloading of a rifle has no relevance whatsoever to what kind of body count a typical mass-shooter could be expected to inflict before he’s either taken down by bystanders or the bystanders have had a chance to scatter or gain cover?

Yes, there is some relevance. Yes you are right it is a better tool for mass shootings. But again I point out how rarely they are used for this. And even if they magically disappeared, pistols or bolt actions would till get the job done, even if they weren’t as proficient.

Speaking of mass shooting - what’s up with that? The AR has been available since 1958. The 60s had semi-common place assassinations. Hell before 1968 you could order one delivered to your door in the mail. Before the 90s you could buy one from a store with no background check. Crime and murder rates were even higher back then. So WHY NOW? Why now that crime is down, laws are more restrictive, that we see a rise in mass shootings? I really don’t have an answer, but I suspect it has to do with coverage and attention that they get.

@Otherbrother

say that you’ve got a friend who believes that fully-automatic, cheap Chinese-made TEC-9 pistols or something similar should be sold with no fewer restrictions than any other types of guns, and should be something you should be able to buy at Walmart without jumping through any hoops whatsoever.

Ugh - ok. Well, now that you have gotten specific… You know I don’t have a clear answer. Part of me thinks the NFA which restricts full autos is a good idea, and an extra check for something like that isn’t a bad idea. But the other part of me thinks - that is some irrational bullshit. The NFA was a direct result of the crime explosion from prohibition. Why would someone be “safe” with a semi-auto but “unsafe” with a full auto? Would they be used more in crime again? Is that a legit reason to have the extra step?

But I am afraid I am not going to use too much energy trying to defeat the NFA, as that won’t happen.

@AcerPlatanoides

I think comparing weapons with teapots rather minimizes those you would like to engage with.

Not trying to minimize anything. You can disagree on how dangerous something is or isn’t, or whether one should own something or not.

But the question was “Why would someone have so many guns.” And the answers are more or less the same for anyone who has a collection or a hobby. There isn’t some crazy reason. (Well, it’s a little crazy.) But the fact that it is something different than what they have or something new is often reason enough.

It is the same reason one person goes, “Oh, a 12 Back Star Wars carded Stormtrooper!”

“You already have a Stormtrooper on a Star Wars card.”

“No, that’s a 20 back, this one is a 12 back! I gotta have it!”

And a gun collector hobbyist might go:

“Oh, an Smith and Wesson 629-2 .44 magnum with a 6” barrel!"

“You already have a .44magnum.”

“No, that one is a 629-4 Classic, this one is older and doesn’t have the under lug. I got to have it.”

By the way kids, for those of you who have to manage finances with another person, the key to collecting is to get a big enough collection that anything new you get could be slipped into your collection and plausibility have been there for years.

“Is that new?”

“This, naw, I have had it for years. Just decided to take it out and look at it.”

You have reached master status when you go through things and find stuff you forgot you had.

ETA - Stat source:

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

[emo_pinata]

I have a question, what would be the opposition to a renewed annual registration on guns you own similar to your vehicle? You know - a permit that travels with the gun and passes state lines during the sale.

A lot of automobile deaths have been prevented by the paperwork around vehicle registration alone because the data feeds into research in the age of cars in the road and the number of vehicles in different areas.

As far as I am aware no such infrastructure exists for guns.

[Mister44]

@emo_pinata

A lot of automobile deaths have been prevented by the paperwork around vehicle registration alone because the data feeds into research in the age of cars in the road and the number of vehicles in different areas.

I assume that is research though in making cars safer in crashes, yes? Registering my car doesn’t make me a safer driver or anything. Registering makes sure the state collects my fees and taxes. What safety data do you hope to glean from gun registration?

@emo_pinata

I have a question, what would be the opposition to a renewed annual registration on guns you own similar to your vehicle? You know - a permit that travels with the gun and passes state lines during the sale.

There are a handful of states or areas that have something similar. Illinois has a FOID card, which is like a permit system. Some states require some registration of some guns or special permitting.

Registration wouldn’t be the end of the world (yet), but I don’t support it for a few reasons.

1. Only the people who aren’t causing problems already are going to be the ones using it. The criminals already circumvent the system.

2. Time after time registration leads to confiscation/turn in programs. Even if the current law makers are not trying to do that, the ones 20 years down the line might. This is the same reason I don’t want the government having back doors on my devices or collecting my phone data or any other domestic spying BS.

I can’t tell if some of the people proposing laws are stupid, or if they think I am stupid, but when they say things like, “No one wants to take your guns.” And then say, “We just want common sense laws like in the UK and Australia,” I wonder if the know both of those had huge gun turn in programs?

OR like CA just passed a new AWB. Which technically doesn’t take guns from anyone, but you can’t get new ones, and you can’t sell or give them to anyone else. So yeah. Basically just going to wait a generation for them to die off. Probably have no affect on the crime, as most gun homicides are with handguns.

[William_Holz]

Personally, I think guns are totally cool as a hobby… just so you don’t point loaded ones at people and aren’t the sort of person who thinks that’s ever okay.

I put them in the same category as explosives (booms are fun!) and anything else that might be dangerous if used recklessly.

Be responsible, don’t endanger people, and if you’re playing with deadly things be a civilized adult.

The gun owners who have that attitude are totally nifty and awesome, and there are lots of them…

The ones who don’t are no better than people who run around throwing homemade bombs around schools and driving cars through parks. Same compete lack of responsibility, same reckless disregard for life.

I don’t think the ‘self defense’ angle is well supported statistically (except in situations where somebody is actually in danger, in which case we should prioritize getting them into better situations) and given how many countries don’t have the sort of gun worship we have here it’s pretty obvious that entire countries can do just fine without this being a big issue.

[Max_Blancke]

Have you seen someone who has a little skill with a lever action rifle? that is 125 year old technology, and can be crazy fast, although reloads are not so quick. I think other commenters have it correct when the mention that very few people are shot with any sort of rifle, because criminals want concealment. I really think this is some kind of directed tactic by some focus group who were trying to decide which sort of gun would be easiest to ban, so they start pumping out scary misinformation. As i have said before, I don’t own an AR, and will be unlikely to ever buy one. I have used them in the military, so I understand them fairly well. We are sometimes armed in my current job, and I avoid ARs there, in favor of other firearms. So, you ban ARs. It is not going to save anyone. The terrorists will just use another sort of gun. Nobody is going to plan some sort of ultraviolence, then call it off when they find that they have to use a rifle with a wooden stock or a shotgun. Most gun owners know this, so we think all the focusing on this or that rifle is not a tactic designed to lower any sort of violence. There are already very specific laws about guns which are prohibited. like sawed off shotguns. you have one of those, and it is straight to the big house for you. They were outlawed because they were being used for a bunch of robberies and killings.

[rkt88edmo]

I gave you a heart despite your use of “clips”

[anon27822705]

I think there are a fair number of people who have guns because it’s their right. It’s a reason – not a particularly good one IMHO – and as long as they are purchased and used legally and safely, enjoy.

[rkt88edmo]

@Mister44

ETA - Stat source:
FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Well said. @Mister44

[rkt88edmo]

@Mister44

OR like CA just passed a new AWB. Which technically doesn’t take guns from anyone, but you can’t get new ones, and you can’t sell or give them to anyone else. So yeah. Basically just going to wait a generation for them to die off. Probably have no affect on the crime, as most gun homicides are with handguns.

The insidious part is there are lots of casual gun owners who will not hear about the new laws, and may have a firearm that falls into the category and they will miss the registration window and become FELONS. After the registration window closes your only recourse is surrender/destruction or taking it out of state.

There are so many gun owners and not all of them are following the latest news and developments or understand that they may own a firearm that these rules apply to. These regulations aren’t always obvious even when you do casually hear about them.

Last time CA did this their main purpose specific website communicating with the public was “regagun.org” <-what a real classy and official looking url eh?

[rkt88edmo]

You are once again missing the CONTEXT of the conversation. The teapots were brought up in the context of UNDERSTANDING THE URGE TO COLLECT.

Just like how “force multiplier” refers to the use of force in an instance, not the multiplication of instances as you stated elsewhere.

I can’t tell if you are deaf to context or just being deliberately trollishly obtuse with you interpertation or if you are not a fluent english reader, which also might be the case, but give your use of language, I doubt it.

You seem to be in the habit of taking things out of context very often.

@AcerPlatanoides

The comparison does not sound absurd. It sounds insulting.

An inert gun, sure.

But one you can kill with… Nope. Don’t insult my intelligence.

[emo_pinata]

That’s a lot of paranoia when all that is being collected is data. The data for automobiles makes the whole US freeway system function, and allowing titles to pass states with consistent language means there are fewer abandoned and I saw vehicles which was a serious problem.

Do I have concrete answers to what data surrounding the true circulation numbers for guns, knowing the density of gun ownership, and having cleaner methods of tracking personal gun sales would mean? No, but I also know that handguns used in murders tend to be laundered legally and we will never know the true impact of the numbers other than what can be gleaned by the ATF failing to even keep track of their own guns they sell for sting operations.

Also, I have agreed with you across may threads that handguns are the real issue with gun crime - and that holds true for the entire spectrum of gun deaths. Handguns are a major problem in the US, and if I saw someone carrying a long gun around I wouldn’t think much of it unless I see them with a lot of ammo too.

[Otherbrother]

@Mister44

In your opinion, are there important, plausible, non-hobby related uses for such a weapon that could not be accomplished with another type of weapon that’s less suited to killing large numbers of people? (For example, a weapon that does not have a large capacity or detachable magazine.)

I am a bit confused what you are asking. If I didn’t answer your question, please clarify it for me.

The non-hobby use, which some people feel is the most important reason for the right, is defense. Both personal and if there is ever another major revolt or civil war in the US. I would say that is an important reason.

Ok, so you believe that personal defense as well as defense against a “major revolt or civil war” are not something that could be accomplished with a weapon that’s got a small capacity, fixed magazine. For the second scenario, I’ll grant you that. (Although I don’t personally find that to be plausible, I think I understand those that do.) For the “personal defense” scenario, please elaborate. Chalk it up to lack of imagination, but I truly can’t think of a plausible personal defense scenario that requires high capacity magazines that can be quickly changed. Frankly, if you can’t effectively defend yourself with a shotgun or revolver I have to wonder what your line of business is.

@Mister44

Yes, there is some relevance. Yes you are right it is a better tool for mass shootings.

I appreciate the honest response! I’ve heard so many people say that older style bolt-action rifles, etc, are JUST AS GOOD for mass shootings as AR-15s that I’ve started to wonder why the world’s armies ever bothered to upgrade from flintlock muskets.

@Mister44

But again I point out how rarely they are used for this. And even if they magically disappeared, pistols or bolt actions would till get the job done, even if they weren’t as proficient.

I’ve never argued that the majority of killings in this country would be prevented if we could magically make all AR-15s disappear. You are correct that the statistical impact would not be huge. But since we’re talking about human lives here, it would not be insignificant! Imagine if the death toll from the worst of the mass killings could be reduced by 50%, or even by 10%. To me that’s something worth trying to do, especially if the primary negative consequence is inconveniencing a bunch of gun enthusiasts who will still get to go shoot off their rifles like they did before, just needing to reload more often.

@Mister44

Ugh - ok. Well, now that you have gotten specific… You know I don’t have a clear answer. Part of me thinks the NFA which restricts full autos is a good idea, and an extra check for something like that isn’t a bad idea. But the other part of me thinks - that is some irrational bullshit. The NFA was a direct result of the crime explosion from prohibition. Why would someone be “safe” with a semi-auto but “unsafe” with a full auto?

In my opinion, and that of the Supreme Court, the NFA restrictions are indeed rational. To me, it comes down to two things:

1. Full auto weapons have been used in a number of mass murders. I have yet to hear of one single case where one was used for self defense in a way that a more conventional weapon couldn’t have worked just as well. Given that the NFA restrictions have passed constitutional muster, why would anyone want to bring that kind of weaponry into common use?
2. Who ever said that “semi auto” is safe when “full auto” isn’t? I think it’s pretty clear that semi auto isn’t safe, but not only is full auto potentially more dangerous in certain situations but there’s not been a demonstrated legitimate need for that feature to be made available to the general public.

[Max_Blancke]

@Otherbrother

1. Full auto weapons have been used in a number of mass murders.

From a quick internet search, it says that at least two legal full auto weapons have been used for homicides since 1934. two is a number, so you are literally correct. Do you have better data.[quote=“Otherbrother, post:33, topic:81191”]
but I truly can’t think of a plausible personal defense scenario that requires high capacity magazines that can be quickly changed.
[/quote]

I have had two neighbors that have been victims of home invasions. In each case, there were four assailants. If I have four intruders, and there was no other choice but to use deadly force, I would be much safer with more chances to miss. Or frankly, just put 20 or so rounds downrange to let them know we are paying attention.

[Max_Blancke]

I will do that. It will be about a week before I can make time for that. I am going to disappear into the San Juan mountains for a week or so with a couple of horses, to sleep under the stars,drink snowmelt water, and eat fresh caught trout. I will not be bringing a phone, which would not work anyway. The news is depressing, it is a little warm here in the valley. We have opera tickets for next weekend, I will probably be back online Sunday. cheers-MB

edit- I have one handy- these are 1936 Fords.

(The image was taken in North Carolina, which is where these cars stay.)

[rkt88edmo]

Data collected from dealers regarding sales (types of guns sold, volume, etc.) isn’t enough for this purpose, you need purchaser’s personal info?

Currently, when a gun is used in a crime, the feds can trace it via serial number to the dealer, and look through their records for that particular gun and the personal information of the person who purchased it. They just have to trace it to the dealer first. If the purchaser of the gun subsequently sold it in a non-dealer transaction, that is where the guns become difficult to trace. Person to Person private property sales are not subject to the background check and record retention and are what is commonly being referred to when you hear about “the gunshow loophole”.

In California, virtually all sales must go through a dealer, so there are no untraceable sales except for illegal ones or family inheritences and gifts which don’t need to go through a dealer. In CA exempt gifts and inheritance transfers must be vertical (father to son, grandfather to grandson) they can not be lateral (brother to brother, uncle to nephew) {insert genders of your choice}.

[rkt88edmo]

@Otherbrother

Ok, so you believe that personal defense as well as defense against a “major revolt or civil war” are not something that could be accomplished with a weapon that’s got a small capacity, fixed magazine. For the second scenario, I’ll grant you that. (Although I don’t personally find that to be plausible, I think I understand those that do.) For the “personal defense” scenario, please elaborate. Chalk it up to lack of imagination, but I truly can’t think of a plausible personal defense scenario that requires high capacity magazines that can be quickly changed. Frankly, if you can’t effectively defend yourself with a shotgun or revolver I have to wonder what your line of business is.

Far and away the most common gun malfunctions happen during the feeding stage, when the bullet is loading from the magazine into the chamber of the firearm. In many of these scenarios a malfunctioning or poorly seated magazine is a contributing factor. No matter what size magazine you have, the ability to change it quickly is highly valued. You may have 14 bullets left in the mag, but if that mag is causing a misfeed they are useless to you.

Extended firefights in self defense scenarios are also extremely rare. Most of the time when a criminal meets deadly force they beat feet and run (0-2 shots fired). that being said, they also tend to act in small groups and focus on lone victims. If you are already carrying a firearm, why would you not want one with more capacity if it only costs you a few extra ounces of weight?

So extra rounds and extra magazines are not often needed. But you are talking about people who have also taken on the extra burden to carry every day in the first place, they see the risks and usually judge that extra rounds and an extra magazine to be less of a PITA to carry even for a very low probability event because a bad result, death of themselves or a loved one, is too high a cost.

[Max_Blancke]

In my State, cars older than 1968 ( I think) are not inspected. I have to renew the registration online. They could be concourse perfect, or falling apart.
I am not a constitutional scholar, but there might be a Fourth Amendment issue here. A permit for each gun owned would imply inspection for compliance, which would be a pretty intrusive search. Where I live, we do not expect our homes to be searched without a warrant. Maybe it is different in your community.
I can guarantee that in at least the last century, nobody has ever knocked on our door and explained that they need to search for anything. Any change in that would probably be interpreted as a big deal.

[rkt88edmo]

For federal purposes, BATF is only going to inspect licensed DEALERS and licensed collectors**, not regular firearms owners. I can’t remember if the 2000 CA AWB ban included an ability to inspect portion. It will be interesting to see if CA DOJ writes one into the coming 2017 CA AWB ban.

Many collectors of older guns are have a federal firearm license of a special type for collecting “curious and relics”. There are different number designations for different types of licenses (dealer, manufacturer, gunsmith, etc.). Collectors are FFL 07, aka C&R aka crufflers.

[Max_Blancke]

I understand that. We have one of the more exotic licenses, a Class 2 SOT, but that permits inspection of the firearms and documentation only at the licensed premises, which is not our home. That is a business thing. And ATF can inspect our business just like the health dept. inspects restaurants. With us, it is always a polite and professional visit. We always exceed requirements.