Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TZucchini]

Thanks for distorting the argument.

Why don't you address the actual argument.

Why don't you clarify your argument for me. I don't want to assume anything, so clarification would be helpful.

It seems like you're saying 'if it performs worse, then it's cosmetic.' Is that the basis of your argument?

Pistol grip use is subjective, and leaving one on because of how it looks after finding it performs worse makes it cosmetic.

Whether or not someone leaves the pistol grip on for cosmetic reasons has no bearing on whether or not it's actually cosmetic.

[Tinykong]

Whether or not someone leaves the pistol grip on for cosmetic reasons has no bearing on whether or not it's actually cosmetic.

Putting a modification onto a device, despite it decreasing performance, merely because you like how it looks is the definition of cosmetic.

A pistol grip can be cosmetic, contrary to your extremism.

[TZucchini]

Putting a modification onto a device, despite it decreasing performance, merely because you like how it looks is the definition of cosmetic.

A pistol grip can be cosmetic, contrary to your extremism.

Adding a device to a firearm for cosmetic reasons, does not make the device cosmetic.

Adding a flash suppressor to a firearm because it looks cool, does not make a flash suppressor cosmetic.

[Tinykong]

Adding a device to a firearm for cosmetic reasons, does not make the device cosmetic.

Adding a flash suppressor to a firearm because it looks cool, does not make a flash suppressor cosmetic.

Stop changing the argument.

If you modify something, and it lowers performance, but you leave it on anyway because of how it looks, the modification is cosmetic.

That doesn't mean the device is cosmetic, it means that it's being used as a cosmetic device.

[Ghostpanther]

Why should firearms be treated differently than other items that are both dangerous and beneficial to society?

I do not think we disagree that much. Cars can be beneficial and dangerous to society. But the training to get a license to operate one is nether expensive or intensive. But is a requirement for good reasons. Something along the lines of that rigorous I would support.

[TZucchini]

Stop changing the argument.

My argument has been consistent throughout. Pistol grips are not purely cosmetic.

If you modify something, and it lowers performance, but you leave it on anyway because of how it looks, the modification is cosmetic.

No. The modification is not cosmetic. The reason for modification is cosmetic.

Those are two completely different things, the latter of which I'm not debating. Thus, my initial argument stands.

[Tinykong]

My argument has been consistent throughout. Pistol grips are not purely cosmetic.

Another gross misrepresentation. You've stated:

It's never, ever, a cosmetic accessory.

Which is not consistent. You unequivocally stated pistol grips can never be cosmetic.

No. The modification is not cosmetic. The reason for modification is cosmetic.

Those are two completely different things, the latter of which I'm not debating. Thus, my initial argument stands.

You're simply wrong. A modification that lowers performance, but is left on because of how it looks is the very definition of cosmetic.

It's no different than putting a spoiler on your shit box car. It makes the car slower, but you think it looks cool so you put it on. The detriment to performance is critical to the distinction, something you seem to keep hand waiving, probably because it disproves your ridiculous assertion of absolutes.

[TZucchini]

Which is not consistent. You made unequivocally stated pistol grips can never be cosmetic.

I am correct. Pistol grips can never, ever, not now, or in a million years, be cosmetic. It's impossible. If you add them to your firearm because you like how they look, they're still not cosmetic.

You like how it looks? Cool. Is it changing the way you hold and grip the firearm? Oh it does? Great, it's not cosmetic.

You're simply wrong. A modification that lowers performance, but is left on because of how it looks is the very definition of cosmetic.

It's no different than putting a spoiler on your shit box car. It makes the car slower, but you think it looks cool so you put it on. The detriment to performance is critical to the distinction, something you seem to keep hand waiving, probably because it disproves your ridiculous assertion of absolutes.

Why do you keep using that horrible analogy? A spoilers generate down force. There's no possible way they could be considered purely cosmetic. Your reason for adding it to the vehicle is irrelevant.

You can go ahead and get your last word in now. I'm all set with this argument.

[Tinykong]

I am correct. Pistol grips can never, ever, not now, or in a million years, be cosmetic. It's impossible. If you add them to your firearm because you like how they look, they're still not cosmetic.

You like how it looks? Cool. Is it changing the way you hold and grip the firearm? Oh it does? Great, it's not cosmetic.

Still failing at understanding the distinction created by accepting a decrease in performance for looks. Shocking.

Why do you keep using that horrible analogy? A spoilers generate down force. There's no possible way they could be considered purely cosmetic. Your reason for adding it to the vehicle is irrelevant.

Only a correctly engineered spoiler creates down force that translates to a performance increase. Most people put them on their cars because of how they look, and because it adds weight and changes the load characteristics on a FWD car, it lowers performance.

You can go ahead and get your last word in now. I'm all set with this argument.

Okay? You're wrong, you hand waiving and refusing to respond (but then continuing to post) is classic behavior for you.

[PhaelixWW]

Why wouldn't that stock be effective for military use?

I should have said "not as effective". Not terribly effective with current military tactical doctrine, at least. Standard rifle stocks, including the anschutz stock used by most of the biathlon rifles that I've seen, require a more sideways stance and also require that the grip arm elbow be extended away from the body.



Current military tactical doctrine emphasizes a more front-on body stance because it's easier to see and move in any direction, even while firing. Plus, a sideways stance somewhat limits the effectiveness of body armor, if you're presenting your shoulder and side, which are less armored, to return fire. The military style of pistol grip that extends down separately from the stock also allows the shooting elbow to be tucked into the body, further lowering the shooter's profile against return fire.



I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with regular rifle stocks. I'm just saying that the military has adapted their tactical doctrine to use the pistol grip in the military arena in a way that doesn't translate to a benefit to civilian criminal shooters.

- - - Updated - - -

of course you could just dismiss them because they´re not showing non-fatal firearm violence rates

Precisely, and I will. I wasn't even the one to bring up non-fatal firearms incidents in the first place. But the amount that the non-fatal rates have fallen is far greater than any other crime drop. A 73% drop in 20 years. That's pretty phenomenal. And I'd love to see what the stat was like in the '60s, but I can't find it anywhere.

[Eroginous]

no i have never shot the same type of rifle with only the grip being the difference, i´ve shot rifles of different sorts, with pistol grip and without


i mean, if i get it right, the defense here is: gun owners that buy these enhancements/extensions are stupid kids that want their weapons to look cool and more military like to the point of imparing their accuracy?

Let's see if I can say this in a way you'll understand. It's not people adding accessories to their firearms that want to evoke a military-style firearm. It's the legislators trying to control/ban these firearms that are evoking a 'military look' as an argument against them. They aren't arguing based on the function of the firearm, because they have no grounds for that argument. That's why we keep referring to them as cosmetic features. Not because of people's desires to accessorize their firearm, but because of legislators desires to argue against them based on looks.

It's like this: I'm not a car guy. I don't accessorize my car with racing tuned parts for better performance. The 'assault weapon' argument would want to ban a souped up Honda Civic because people shouldn't be able to own 'race cars' as daily street vehicles. It's exactly the same argument. Just because you paint a car a certain way, put rims on it, attach a fin on the back, add some racing parts to the engine, doesn't make it a race car. Is some idiot likely to drive it fast and treat it like a race car? Sure. But that isn't the point.

While firearm accessories do add particular functionality to a firearm, they don't affect the firearms capacity to shoot a bullet, which is where the killing capacity of a firearm comes from. Not from it's accessories. If I owned a shotgun, I'd put a shorter barrel on it, folding stock, pistol grip, just to make it easier to carry when not in use. I'd put a shell holder on it to hold extra shells so I don't have to carry them in a pocket. I'd put a sling on it so I can carry it without hands. I'd put ghost ring sights on it so I can better see what I'm aiming at. I'd even put a barrel shroud on it to help prevent burns from the barrel.

Does this make my shotgun a military weapon? Does this mean I want my shotgun to have a military look? Not necessarily. These accessories add function to my firearm, function it doesn't normally have. But they don't change the functionality of firing shells. I'd still have to rack the slide between shots, I'd still have to hold it the same way, and I'd still be limited to the number of shots I have.

So yes, classifying my shotgun as an 'assault weapon' based on these features is very much an argument based on looks and not function.

[PhaelixWW]

Why should I believe that someone armed with a firearm attempting to defend their own life would be less likely to pull the trigger than the attacker attempting to rob/hurt/kill the victim?

Well, shit. If you think that law-abiding gun owners are more likely to commit homicide than criminals, then it's no wonder that you want to repeal the 2nd Amendment. I'm surprised that you don't want to ban guns entirely.

Does that mean that you think we'd be saving lives by giving all the guns currently in the possession of law-abiding citizens into the hands of criminals? Since, you know, attackers are less likely by definition to pull the trigger than defenders.

What seems to be just as likely, given the gross imbalance, is that the amount of instances/opportunities in which the defender needs to pull the trigger is vastly dwarfed by the number of criminal homicides committed with a firearm.

And I'm sorry, but how many of those criminal homicides are situations where the criminal needs to pull the trigger?

Hemenway's estimate is not actually the lowest. The lowest estimate that I've seen comes from one of the most reputable sources, the National Crime and Victimization Survey.

Hemenway's number comes from the NCVS, back in the 1997 report he coathored.

And one of the bolded sentences from the CDC report that you ignored said:

The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

And that's why people don't take that number seriously, because it completely bypasses a sizable portion of defensive uses.

How is it patently untrue?

It would help if you actually read the sentence of yours that I was calling patently untrue. Here it is again:

The presence of a homeowner during a burglary is more than enough to scare a criminal away

More than enough? No other defense is ever necessary? Every single burglar will flee with a person at home?

Patently untrue.

The fact that there are literally dozens, conducted differently, by different individuals, controlled differently, from different areas, all coming to the the same relative conclusion; I feel pretty comfortable with that.

And the bolded sentence, which you ignored, said:

Both studies fail to address the multiple factors involved in the decision to buy a gun – owning a gun is not a random decision...

None of the studies that I've seen you link have addressed the idea that the reason that many of these homes had a firearm on the premises in the first place was due to an extant risk of criminal (or suicidal, for that matter) violence aimed at someone in the home, rather than the causality being vice versa.

Which is what I've been advocating since the beginning.

[Svifnymr]

Not to quibble, but you can rack the slide even with a loaded shell, if you want to.

Sure, but then you're ejecting a round so still one down, and again you're giving some mythical value to the noise of racking a shotgun over racking a 9mm carbine.

[Tinykong]

Sure, but then you're ejecting a round so still one down, and again you're giving some mythical value to the noise of racking a shotgun over racking a 9mm carbine.

It's certainly louder, in my experience.

[Svifnymr]

no i have never shot the same type of rifle with only the grip being the difference, i´ve shot rifles of different sorts, with pistol grip and without


i mean, if i get it right, the defense here is: gun owners that buy these enhancements/extensions are stupid kids that want their weapons to look cool and more military like to the point of imparing their accuracy?

A pistol grip may change the handling characteristics of a rifle, but it doesn't change the functional characteristics. It puts the recoil directly into the web of your hand, for instance, but that's not a big issue with military calibers in general.

The first two guns are the same gun with a different stock, they will fire the same, just as accuretly. Labeling the second one a "semi-automatic assault weapon" based on the way it looks, is why we call it a cosmetic ban. The ban doesn't address the functionality of the rifle, just secondary characteristics that the drafters felt made it a military gun.

The primary characteristics would be semi-automatic and ability to accept a detachable magazine, really, anything else is not going to affect much.


Anyway, most of the folks part of this discussion agree that an AWB is pointless, and I'd think most of them would also agree Feinstein knows little to nothing about guns, so it really is just a pointless argument.

- - - Updated - - -

It's certainly louder, in my experience.

A 9mm AR makes a good bit of noise when racked. But the shotgun may be louder, certainly. In either case I'd rather have a suppressed carbine already loaded, so there would be no racking noise anyway.

[TZucchini]

Well, shit. If you think that law-abiding gun owners are more likely to commit homicide than criminals, then it's no wonder that you want to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Here, again, you haven't proven your previous statement. As for myself, yes, I would think that someone of the belief that their life is in imminent danger would be just as likely to pull the trigger than someone attempting to rob/injure/kill.

Are you of the belief that it would be any different?

And I'm sorry, but how many of those criminal homicides are situations where the criminal needs to pull the trigger?

Obviously zero. What does that have to do with the imbalance?

Hemenway's number comes from the NCVS, back in the 1997 report he coathored.

And one of the bolded sentences from the CDC report that you ignored said:

Of course people were asked about defensive gun uses.

Page 12, question 41a and 42a:

"Did you do anything with the idea of protecting YOURSELF or your PROPERTY while the incident was going on?

What did you do? Attacked offender with gun; fired gun...Probe: Anything else?....Please specify what you did."

These are thorough questions on defensive gun use, from one of the most reputable sources for crime statistics, current and up to date. If you don't want to take their numbers seriously, that's your prerogative.

It would help if you actually read the sentence of yours that I was calling patently untrue. Here it is again:

More than enough? No other defense is ever necessary? Every single burglar will flee with a person at home?

Again, obviously not. The presence of a homeowner is not always enough to scare someone away (I never said it was). But many times, it can be, regardless as to whether or not the homeowner is holding a firearm, which will then get attributed: to the firearm.

And that doesn't even address the actual point I'm making; there's a serious limitation to these all these figures being thrown about; that the only reliable statistics on DGU's can come from the actual criminals that retreated. A limitation that justified/unjustified homicides are not subject to.

[OneSent]

[Mayhem]

snip

changing the way you perform with the weapon is not an argument of looks, these things aren´t cosmetic changes, if the changes add function to your firearm

cosmetic changes: paint

cosmetic changes to a degree: different materials (wooden or metal stock)

non cosmetic changes: enhancements

[Eroginous]

changing the way you perform with the weapon is not an argument of looks, these things aren´t cosmetic changes, if the changes add function to your firearm

cosmetic changes: paint

cosmetic changes to a degree: different materials (wooden or metal stock)

non cosmetic changes: enhancements

Really not sure how you're having so much trouble with this.

When we're discussing whether or not a particular firearm should be accessible by the general public, the decisions being made are based on how the firearm functions in terms of firing bullets. Not whether it has a folding stock, pistol grip, or flash light mounted on it. Put every accessory imaginable on a rifle and it's functionally still the same rifle it was before. Just because it has additional functionality in other ways, does not mean those accessories changed how the rifle itself functions as a rifle. That's why so many of us are opposed to an 'assault weapons ban' or even calling them 'assault weapons' at all.

If what distinguishes a rifle between 'assault' and 'not assault' are things that have nothing to do how a rifle functions, then the term is dealing with looks, not function.

[PhaelixWW]

As for myself, yes, I would think that someone of the belief that their life is in imminent danger would be just as likely to pull the trigger than someone attempting to rob/injure/kill.

Are you of the belief that it would be any different?

It's funny to me that you so clearly don't see how you keep trying to move those goalposts back and forth.
Comparing apples to apples, an attacker who feels his life to be in imminent danger will be more likely to pull the trigger than a defender who feels his life to be in imminent danger. An attacker who doesn't feel his life is in imminent danger will be more likely to pull the trigger than a defender who doesn't feel his life is in imminent danger.

You're trying to compare the likelihood, but put all the imminence on one side. That comparison is not fair or valid.

Additionally, an attacker is more likely than a defender to finish off a wounded victim. An attacker is far less likely to call the police or an ambulance in the aftermath of a shooting confrontation.

So, yes, comparing justifiable/unjustifiable homicide stats as a stand-in for overall gun offensive/defensive actions is ridiculous.

Of course people were asked about defensive gun uses.

Reading comprehension. The quote said: "respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use." They were only asked about defensive gun use in the context of a criminal incident. It ignores most incidents of defensive gun use which prevented a criminal incident from happening in the first place.

Again, obviously not. The presence of a homeowner is not always enough to scare someone away (I never said it was).

Your earlier statement:

The presence of a homeowner during a burglary is more than enough to scare a criminal away

...sure as heck sounds like an absolute. I don't see an "is often enough" or "is sometimes enough" there. Instead, I see an "is more than enough". Take better care with your words if you don't want to be accused of claiming an absolute.

the only reliable statistics on DGU's can come from the actual criminals that retreated.

And criminals might just indicate additional instances of DGU's that the defenders aren't even aware of because they saw or knew that the person was armed. Once again, most attackers know their victims. So they would likely know if said potential victim was likely to be armed.