Gun Control

Brian?

ChicagoIrish wrote: »

in what way are swiss gun control laws significantly more stringent than american gun laws? assault rifles aren't banned in switzerland (and it's not like you need much more for a school shooting) and many american counties (my own included) have "assault weapon" (dont confuse it with assault rifle, assault weapon is a political term) bans, which bans guns based on appearance.
im half swiss so i would know about these things.

I'm not in the habit of dropping links to prove a point, but everything you need to know is here:

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland

Small excerpt:

In Switzerland, the law requires that a record of the acquisition, possession and transfer of each privately held firearm be retained in an official register

In Switzerland, licensed firearm dealers are required to keep a record of each firearm or ammunition purchase, sale or transfer on behalf of a regulating authority

In Switzerland, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic firearms, some automatic firearms converted into semi-automatic firearms, incendiary or armour-piercing ammunition, and 'expansive projectiles for handguns'

In Switzerland, private possession of fully automatic weapons is prohibited

All gun owners require licences etc. etc.

Being half Swiss doesn't change the facts. In fact there is a handy tool on the site above to compare gun laws in different countries. Switzerland is rated as restrictive, the USA is rated as permissive.

AbusesToilets

Overheal wrote: »

Do they somehow not increase the effectiveness of the weapon? Devils advocate. Easier grip less recoil and more shots between reloads.

No, they have no effect on the weapons lethality, as evidenced by the tens of thousands killed by the type on top in 50 years of combat versus probably a handful killed by the one on the bottom. Not to mention that the overwhelming majority of guns deaths are attributed to handguns, with rifles accounting for less than 1% annually. One the links I posted previously was the FBI annual stats, out of approx 40,000 deaths that year, rifles made up less than 700.

AbusesToilets

K-9 wrote: »

Well if you go back to the first high profile cases, naturally they attract huge media and political focus, same as Dunblane or Norway. So the question has to is it just media fuelling these copycat murder sprees or are there other factors, the gun culture in America one of them?

I'd think less to do with the gun culture and more reflective on social issues such as isolation, disenchantment and anger. Those shooters seem to have similar profiles, often with untreated mental issues. While they made use of guns certainly, many instances also involved attempts at homemade explosives, which would suggest that they were of a frame of mind set on murder regardless of the tools at hand. The existence of guns contributed to their efficacy, but I wouldn't but the blame on such a shooting on a "gun culture".

Overheal

AbusesToilets wrote: »

No, they have no effect on the weapons lethality, as evidenced by the tens of thousands killed by the type on top in 50 years of combat versus probably a handful killed by the one on the bottom. Not to mention that the overwhelming majority of guns deaths are attributed to handguns, with rifles accounting for less than 1% annually. One the links I posted previously was the FBI annual stats, out of approx 40,000 deaths that year, rifles made up less than 700.

That doesn't answer my question: are collapsible stocks, extended magazines, and pistol grips not enhancements to the firearm?

K-9

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I'd think less to do with the gun culture and more reflective on social issues such as isolation, disenchantment and anger. Those shooters seem to have similar profiles, often with untreated mental issues. While they made use of guns certainly, many instances also involved attempts at homemade explosives, which would suggest that they were of a frame of mind set on murder regardless of the tools at hand. The existence of guns contributed to their efficacy, but I wouldn't but the blame on such a shooting on a "gun culture".

You see this is the problem with how the US gun debate has gone, blame.

I never said gun culture was to blame, just that it is likely to be one of a few causes, media attention, copycat style sprees, mental health and yes, probably certain aspects of gun culture.

The debate seems to be so hard line I don't know if a reasoned compromise can be worked out. Rationally people should be looking to causes of murder sprees and if gun culture plays a part, try to see what can be done to address that, without hysteria about Govt. taking the right to own guns away. Really, young lads with mental issues in a country with a gun culture, a history of previous school murder sprees and a liberal gun culture are a problem.

Saying that has nothing to do with guns is just too dismissive for what is a serious problem.

AbusesToilets

K-9 wrote: »

You see this is the problem with how the US gun debate has gone, blame.

I never said gun culture was to blame, just that it is likely to be one of a few causes, media attention, copycat style sprees, mental health and yes, probably certain aspects of gun culture.

The debate seems to be so hard line I don't know if a reasoned compromise can be worked out. Rationally people should be looking to causes of murder sprees and if gun culture plays a part, try to see what can be done to address that, without hysteria about Govt. taking the right to own guns away. Really, young lads with mental issues in a country with a gun culture, a history of previous school murder sprees and a liberal gun culture are a problem.

Saying that has nothing to do with guns is just too dismissive for what is a serious problem.

Can you elaborate on what you consider "Gun Culture" to be, beyond the existence of said items? You are quick to rail against people blindly assigning blame in this debate, yet seem eager to paint guns as being the culprit behind this violence.

I see a lot of violence propagated in US culture, with media fetishisation of mass shooting occurrences. This would seem to be a more likely avenue to explore when trying to determine the roots of this issues.

AbusesToilets

Overheal wrote: »

That doesn't answer my question: are collapsible stocks, extended magazines, and pistol grips not enhancements to the firearm?

Well no, not really. An enhancement would be something that changes the performance of the firearm, e.g barrel length, calibre, action etc.

A collapsible stock has some value for transport by making the rifle's profile shorter. A foregrip is a matter of choice, many competitive shooters for example would forego them entirely. A high capacity magazine (over 30rds) is of debatable value, as they are typically more prone to jamming and inducing malfunctions. These are cosmetic items and do nothing to impact the inherent lethality of the rifle, which is largely dependent on the shooters ability.

Overheal

That's some amazing wordplay. So if your insinuation is magazines offer no benefit why do people make them? Why do people buy them and why are they opposed to legislation banning their further sale and production?

JPNelsforearm

Overheal wrote: »

That's some amazing wordplay. So if your insinuation is magazines offer no benefit why do people make them? Why do people buy them and why are they opposed to legislation banning their further sale and production?

Well its easy to load one or two big magazines, than keep reloading every five shots, or to have a whole heap of ten or five shot magazines. Imagine a day at the range how many times you have to reload, itd get to be a pain in the hole, make life easier for yourself.

And before you say that'll stop mass shootings, forget about ease of use for recreational shooters, it wont, most shootings are committed with handguns, not rifles with 30 round magazines.

this vid explains better than me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU

AbusesToilets

Overheal wrote: »

That's some amazing wordplay. So if your insinuation is magazines offer no benefit why do people make them? Why do people buy them and why are they opposed to legislation banning their further sale and production?

You mentioned extended magazines, which to me means more than the standard 30rd magazine for rifles, or more than the standard 15rds for a pistol (depending on calibre). If you are not an experienced shooter, you might not realise how little time it takes to conduct a reload. Even a relative novice should be able to do so in under 3 secs with a small amount of practice.

These call for bans are meaningless on two levels. For one, a criminal will likely ignore a restriction on magazine capacity if able, in a similar fashion to how the shooters in San Bernardino ignored the restrictions on altering a rifle to make it full automatic. Secondly, a shooter who uses smaller capacity magazines faces no great hindrance to his ability to deliver rounds on target.

Calls for restrictions on magazines are another case of fear mongering and giving the appearance of tackling an issue by punishing those who already follow the law. It does nothing to lower crime rates whatsoever.

K-9

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Can you elaborate on what you consider "Gun Culture" to be, beyond the existence of said items? You are quick to rail against people blindly assigning blame in this debate, yet seem eager to paint guns as being the culprit behind this violence.

I see a lot of violence propagated in US culture, with media fetishisation of mass shooting occurrences. This would seem to be a more likely avenue to explore when trying to determine the roots of this issues.

I'd be open to research on murder sprees. If gun culture or access to guns plays some part of that, I'd be looking at ways to see if anything can be done about it.

I mean, we all agree mental illness plays a part, so the sensible thing to do is see if there is anything that can be done.

If access to guns for people with mental illness is part of the problem, maybe we can look at access to guns too, not just mental illness. Seems pretty obvious and common sense to me.

Maybe there are studies saying access to guns play no part and my logic is flawed.

AbusesToilets

K-9 wrote: »

I'd be open to research on murder sprees. If gun culture or access to guns plays some part of that, I'd be looking at ways to see if anything can be done about it.

I mean, we all agree mental illness plays a part, so the sensible thing to do is see if there is anything that can be done.

If access to guns for people with mental illness is part of the problem, maybe we can look at access to guns too, not just mental illness. Seems pretty obvious and common sense to me.

Maybe there are studies saying access to guns play no part and my logic is flawed.

Still not clear on what you consider gun culture to be.

How would you go about assessing the mental state of potential gun owners? I'm certainly not against taking steps to prevent deranged individuals from obtaining weapons, however that would be a very difficult course to chart. Manic laid out some thoughts on that in previous post, re: standards of assessment, potential liability for those responsible for such. That's without addressing the logistical side of things, such access, cost etc.

K-9

I would say a country with high gun ownership figures has a gun culture. The U.S., Canada, Switzerland of the top of my head. Nothing wrong with it, I'd just expect laws and regulations to deal with the side effects of a large chunk of the population owning guns.

Background checks would help. Anybody with a mental illness that has a high propensity for violence, I'd suggest not giving them access to guns as a reasonable start. That may freak out a few civil liberty groups, but so be it.

It isn't going to solve world peace and cut gun murders to zero, but if it stops a few people from shooting sprees, so be it.

So he'll just get a knife? Nobody is suggesting ordinary citizens shouldn't carry guns to shoot him and disarm him, as they can do this very minute.

Overheal

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Well its easy to load one or two big magazines, than keep reloading every five shots, or to have a whole heap of ten or five shot magazines. Imagine a day at the range how many times you have to reload, itd get to be a pain in the hole, make life easier for yourself.

And before you say that'll stop mass shootings, forget about ease of use for recreational shooters, it wont, most shootings are committed with handguns, not rifles with 30 round magazines.

this vid explains better than me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU

Notice how the rate of fire is by the shooter's own choice, faster on the second round of fire, and even a little faster on the third with his time on the third only being limited by the number of reloads he performed. A clear experimenter's bias. It's also patently unclear how many takes they did this in. Also, how many years has Jim (who very likely has a strong background in law enforcement) been working with firearms? The idea that every one crazy enough to commit a mass shooting is going to be a grizzled expert with decades of experience frankly defies the statistics: the majority of shooters are young white males with social issues. It's also done from a standing gun range position with clips available at a nearby shelf, which is completely detached from the reality of an active shooter scenario. An interesting video, but proves nothing.

AbusesToilets

Overheal wrote: »

Notice how the rate of fire is by the shooter's own choice, faster on the second round of fire, and even a little faster on the third with his time on the third only being limited by the number of reloads he performed. A clear experimenter's bias. It's also patently unclear how many takes they did this in. Also, how many years has Jim (who very likely has a strong background in law enforcement) been working with firearms? The idea that every one crazy enough to commit a mass shooting is going to be a grizzled expert with decades of experience frankly defies the statistics: the majority of shooters are young white males with social issues. An interesting video, but proves nothing.

What are you contesting? It doesn't take much training to be able to perform a reload in a couple of seconds. This idea that restricting magazine size will allow someone to attack a shooter is bogus.

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

That doesn't answer my question: are collapsible stocks, extended magazines, and pistol grips not enhancements to the firearm?

They are features, but not always enhancements. A collapsible stock is usually less sturdy than a solid one, but on the other hand can be adjusted easily for length of pull. (Eg, I have long arms, so I extend all the way. Girlfriend has shorter arms, so she collapses it a bit). Extended magazines are fun and provide more ammunition between reloads, but on the other hand are usually bulky, cumbersome, and unreliable. Pistol grips are more ergonomic and comfortable, but could catch more easily in brush and make the rifle bigger.

Personally, since I don't plan on clubbing too many people or diving around with my rifles, I like the collapsible stock as I think the benefits are far better than the disadvantages. I do not like cumbersome, unreliable magazines, so I own no extended magazines. I like the ergonomics of the rear pistol grip, but I am not a fan of the forward grip.

It's down to preference and utility.

The rate of fire thing is a bit of a red herring. Most shooters don't empty a full ten rounds as fast as they can pull the trigger. Especially not spree shooters, who usually are methodical and deliberate,

YerMan420

AbusesToilets wrote: »

A high capacity magazine (over 30rds)

what is high capacity and isn't is entirely subjective. glad you didn't say above 10 is high capacity though (like many people do), because most magazines have 30 rounds.