Regulating Bullets in the US

[NYC17]

Comparing the kinetic energy of a handgun to a rifle and then declaring that the rifle is sinister because of its higher energy is a weird argument that I haven't heard before. A standardly equipped AR-15 isn't a particularly impressive weapon from a muzzle velocity perspective, it's just an odd comparison to make at all.

Hunting rifles have high muzzle energy as well - this has literally nothing to do whether they're "intended for civilian use".

- - - Updated - - -


There's like three or four arguments mixed into this that are kind of all over the place. This isn't a serious proposal in any way, it's just "do something!" repackaged into a policy proposal that hasn't been given any real thought.

Yet, you're unable to properly criticize it outside of "this is just weird".

The empirical evidence shows the difference.

[Spectral]

Yet, you're unable to properly criticize it outside of "this is just weird".

The empirical evidence shows the difference.

It's a weird comparison because it's trivially obvious that rifles have higher muzzle energy than handguns (generally). This is equally true for hunting rifles and shotguns - there's nothing special about AR-15s. Acting like high energy is a special property of AR-15s just makes you seem like you're too ignorant about weapons to have any serious conversation about them.

[NYC17]

It's a weird comparison because it's trivially obvious that rifles have higher muzzle energy than handguns (generally). This is equally true for hunting rifles and shotguns - there's nothing special about AR-15s. Acting like high energy is a special property of AR-15s just makes you seem like you're too ignorant about weapons to have any serious conversation about them.

Well no. We're talking about the nature of an AR-15 and its ability to put such devastating results downrange in a short amount of time.

It's not equally true.

[zenkai]

It's a weird comparison because it's trivially obvious that rifles have higher muzzle energy than handguns (generally). This is equally true for hunting rifles and shotguns - there's nothing special about AR-15s. Acting like high energy is a special property of AR-15s just makes you seem like you're too ignorant about weapons to have any serious conversation about them.

Yeah more people die to handguns but that kinetic energy of an AR, oh man! I agree, its a stupid argument.

[Spectral]

Well no. We're talking about the nature of an AR-15 and its ability to put such devastating results downrange in a short amount of time.

It's not equally true.

When you're writing about the damage it does to organs, you're referring to kinetic energy. There's nothing unique about an AR-15 there. The relatively elderly M1 Garand has approximately double the kinetic energy of a the standard .223 AR-15; it was sufficient for the Texas Clocktower massacre.

The obsession with a specific model of rifle is just silly. It makes regulation advocates seem like they're arguing about something they're completely uninterested in learning anything about.

[Lothar from accounting]

Is there any data out there that shows how many gun owners actually make their own bullets?

I can't imagine this is very common among gun owners. Especially those who view guns as protection rather than for hunting or sport.

Kind of reminds me of my bassoon playing days. (I know...random right?) You could make your own reeds, but it was a pain in the rear and most just bought them. Only the pros and people super into it really made their own.

I don't have any numbers for you, but it is sufficiently popular that at least one company that makes reloading equipment puts out a monthly catalog/'magazine' free of charge.
For a number people it's the allure of 'cheaper' ammo by sourcing all the components and combining themselves. There's a certain OCD/zen/ADHD allure to it too in that it's a repetitive, precise task.
Competitive shooters are more into reloading as well because, in theory, it gives them better QC over their ammo by doing it themselves. Benchrest shooters in particular like to dial in the amount of powder in their cartridges down to a fraction of a grain. (Grain in this case being a measure of weight rather than indicating a particle of gunpowder. And there being 15.4324 grains in a gram, 437.5 grains in an ounce, and 7000 grains in a pound.)

[NYC17]

Yeah more people die to handguns but that kinetic energy of an AR, oh man! I agree, its a stupid argument.

Feel free to read the difference. You're not even capable of making or supporting the point Spectral is making. You defaulted back to abject ignorance and agree with an argument that wasn't made.

It's almost as if your inherent ignorance overwhelms and contributes to every discussion you decide to engage in.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...n-guns/553937/

- - - Updated - - -

When you're writing about the damage it does to organs, you're referring to kinetic energy. There's nothing unique about an AR-15 there. The relatively elderly M1 Garand has approximately double the kinetic energy of a the standard .223 AR-15; it was sufficient for the Texas Clocktower massacre.

The obsession with a specific model of rifle is just silly. It makes regulation advocates seem like they're arguing about something they're completely uninterested in learning anything about.

The M1 Garand isn't the weapon of choice. That would fall to the AR

You're talking generally because you have to. The reason it fails is because of the specificity of the argument. So it's not so much that I'm arguing for something that I don't know anything about as much as it is your argument requires you to ignore the reality of the situation being discussed.

The uniqueness regarding the AR is the popularity. I thought you'd be able to connect the dots on your own, but you seem more interested in actively trying to not understand the argument. It wasn't a difficult enough one for you to be confused about.

[Spectral]

The M1 Garand isn't the weapon of choice. That would fall to the AR

You're talking generally because you have to. The reason it fails is because of the specificity of the argument.

I would expect a ban on AR-15s to result in something that would be close to a 100% replacement effect in mass shootings. There's nothing special about an AR-15 and that article that keeps referring to the AR-15 as though it has some sort of unique power is just bizarre to read. All I can think of is that Popehat article from a couple years ago:

It's hard to grasp the reaction of someone who understands gun terminology to someone who doesn't. So imagine we're going through one of our periodic moral panics over dogs and I'm trying to persuade you that there should be restrictions on, say, Rottweilers.

Me: I don't want to take away dog owners' rights. But we need to do something about Rottweilers.
You: So what do you propose?
Me: I just think that there should be some sort of training or restrictions on owning an attack dog.
You: Wait. What's an "attack dog?"
Me: You know what I mean. Like military dogs.
You: Huh? Rottweilers aren't military dogs. In fact "military dogs" isn't a thing. You mean like German Shepherds?
Me: Don't be ridiculous. Nobody's trying to take away your German Shepherds. But civilians shouldn't own fighting dogs.
You: I have no idea what dogs you're talking about now.
Me: You're being both picky and obtuse. You know I mean hounds.
You: What the fuck.
Me: OK, maybe not actually ::air quotes:: hounds ::air quotes::. Maybe I have the terminology wrong. I'm not obsessed with vicious dogs like you. But we can identify kinds of dogs that civilians just don't need to own.
You: Can we?

Because I'm just talking out of my ass, the impression I convey is that I want to ban some arbitrary, uninformed category of dogs that I can't articulate. Are you comfortable that my rule is going to be drawn in a principled, informed, narrow way?

If the kinetic energy is the problem, banning AR-15s specifically is incoherent. Writing about "AR-15 injuries" rather than "rifle injuries" just makes the doctor in that article seem like he doesn't have any idea what he's talking about. In Popehat's analogy, it'd be like a doc talking about "pit bull bites" as though they're qualitatively different than getting bitten by another big, powerful dog.

[Thekri]

Is there any data out there that shows how many gun owners actually make their own bullets?

I can't imagine this is very common among gun owners. Especially those who view guns as protection rather than for hunting or sport.

Kind of reminds me of my bassoon playing days. (I know...random right?) You could make your own reeds, but it was a pain in the rear and most just bought them. Only the pros and people super into it really made their own.

It is extremely common. I know dozens of people that do exactly that, it isn't really about quantity or even cost, it is about making your own and being able to customize it exactly the way they want.

It is like saying that most Warhammer 40k players don't paint their own models because it isn't much cheaper and you can get plenty of good quality pre-painted figures. You might be right in sheer numbers, but basically anybody that is actually serious about it does exactly that. It seems insane to me, but I know for a fact that it is extremely common, because it is their hobby, and they love it.

That is really the crux of the issue, and why regulating it doesn't make sense. The people that reload their own ammo are hobbyists. I don't know of a single case where a gun hobbyist that reloaded ammo conducted a mass shooting. Now the sort of militia/conspiracy theory gun nuts are not gun hobbyists, they typically buy cheap military ammo in bulk (Which lots of people do, including gun hobbyists as well), but reloading huge quantities of ammo just doesn't happen, economy of scale and all that.

Ammo itself is far harder to regulate then guns, because if you are trying to limit how much they have, you have to track their purchases from every source. If you can buy 400 from Walmart, and 400 from Academy, and 400 from a pawn shop, and 400 from... you see where this is going, to track this you would need some sort of real time national database tracking every ammo purchase by ID, which would be basically impossible in addition to being hugely controversial. Whereas guns are essentially a binary problem, either person X can by gun Y, or he/she cannot.

[Allybeboba]

Regulating ammunition is the way to go.

peace

[NYC17]

I would expect a ban on AR-15s to result in something that would be close to a 100% replacement effect in mass shootings. There's nothing special about an AR-15 and that article that keeps referring to the AR-15 as though it has some sort of unique power is just bizarre to read. All I can think of is that Popehat article from a couple years ago:

If the kinetic energy is the problem, banning AR-15s specifically is incoherent. Writing about "AR-15 injuries" rather than "rifle injuries" just makes the doctor in that article seem like he doesn't have any idea what he's talking about.

Again, you're actively trying to fail to comprehend the argument and replace it with a narrow one I'm not making. The velocity and damage it can inflict are part of the equation. Part of the equation.

He wrote about AR 15 injuries because that's the weapon of choice. It's what he personally had experience with. So yes, if you want to only compare the AR's velocity with another's velocity then you can make whatever point you want to make about that.

Unfortunately for you, that's only part of the equation.

[Spectral]

Again, you're actively trying to fail to comprehend the argument and replace it with a narrow one I'm not making. The velocity and damage it can inflict are part of the equation. Part of the equation.

He wrote about AR 15 injuries because that's the weapon of choice. It's what he personally had experience with. S yes, if you want to only compare the AR's velocity with another's velocity then you can make whatever point you want to make about that.

Unfortunately for you, that's only part of the equation.

I have no idea what your intended equation is. Rifle wounds are more damaging that small caliber handgun wounds. AR-15s are common rifles. Q E fuckin' D, I guess, but I have no idea what that's supposed to be evidence of. It's a fully general argument that suggests that the proposed solution would be a wholesale ban on rifles, which is already exactly what Second Amendment advocates suspect is the goal of gun control advocates.

[Lenonis]

I don't have any numbers for you, but it is sufficiently popular that at least one company that makes reloading equipment puts out a monthly catalog/'magazine' free of charge.
For a number people it's the allure of 'cheaper' ammo by sourcing all the components and combining themselves. There's a certain OCD/zen/ADHD allure to it too in that it's a repetitive, precise task.
Competitive shooters are more into reloading as well because, in theory, it gives them better QC over their ammo by doing it themselves. Benchrest shooters in particular like to dial in the amount of powder in their cartridges down to a fraction of a grain. (Grain in this case being a measure of weight rather than indicating a particle of gunpowder. And there being 15.4324 grains in a gram, 437.5 grains in an ounce, and 7000 grains in a pound.)

Right. I mean I totally get that there is a sub-section of gun folk who make their own ammo. For all the reasons you listed and more.

I'm just honestly and agenda-free curious how many that is.

I know anecdotal and all...

The people I know who own guns for protection don't make ammo because they rarely use it. Some do target practice once in a while, but don't use nearly enough volume to justify making their own ammo.

The hunters I know don't make their own ammo because ammo is relatively cheap.

So if you look at the number of gun owners -- and you eliminate collectors, people who just own guns for protection....you have got to be eliminating a pretty significant portion -- especially in urban areas.

I think the last stat I saw stated that 37% of household own guns. So the total gun owning population is less than 119 million (I say less than because I used the total pop of the US to start and that would include children. Plus "household" often includes more than one person and it's likely a large number of those households has just one primary owner/user of those guns).

So if we say 10% of gun owners makes ammo (which seems really high to me) we're talking 11 million gun owners.

I don't really know where I'm going with this other than trying to see what a reasonable sounding number is. 11 million ammo makers still seems really really really high.

- - - Updated - - -

It is extremely common.

I know a ton of people who own guns and not a single one of them make their own ammo. So...I counter your anecdote with mine I guess?

it is about making your own and being able to customize it exactly the way they want.

Ok...but there are a huge number of gun owners who don't view guns as a hobby. Even my friends who own guns and hunt (and I do know a large number) don't make their own ammo. And none of my friends who own guns for protection would even consider it.

But I live in a city -- maybe you live in a more rural area where gun sporting is more common?

[Thekri]

Again, you're actively trying to fail to comprehend the argument and replace it with a narrow one I'm not making. The velocity and damage it can inflict are part of the equation. Part of the equation.

He wrote about AR 15 injuries because that's the weapon of choice. It's what he personally had experience with. S yes, if you want to only compare the AR's velocity with another's velocity then you can make whatever point you want to make about that.

Unfortunately for you, that's only part of the equation.

Being part of the equation is pretty much the point. The AR-15 itself is far from unique, it isn't the weapon that you really have a problem with, it is the capability, and that capability is so wide spread that you really need to determine what it is you want to regulate. Is an Ak-47 materially different from an AR-15 in this scenario? Probably not, an FAL? SCAR? Ak-74? What about a modified Ruger 10/22? A Remington 700? Mossberg 500? These weapons are not at all similar, but they all have some, or all of the same capabilities as the AR-15, and all of them are definitely lethal.

Right now the AR-15 is trendy, for both the mass shooters and the people wanting to ban guns. Mass shooters tend to not be very creative individuals, and AR-15s are currently known as "Mass Shooting Rifles", so someone that knows nothing about guns, but wants to murder half his school is going to buy one. If you ban them, something else is going to become trendy though. A high capacity shotgun is probably much more effective in this scenario, what if they start using those?

Remember back in the early 2000s where the Washington Sniper pair were killing random people around DC by shooting from the trunk of a car? Back then the same crowd that is after AR-15s was after "Sniper rifles", which rather ironically, was actually an AR-15 variant being used in a very different way. But nobody could really define what a sniper rifle was, so nothing really happened.

edit---------------

I know a ton of people who own guns and not a single one of them make their own ammo. So...I counter your anecdote with mine I guess?

Ok...but there are a huge number of gun owners who don't view guns as a hobby. Even my friends who own guns and hunt (and I do know a large number) don't make their own ammo. And none of my friends who own guns for protection would even consider it.

But I live in a city -- maybe you live in a more rural area where gun sporting is more common?

We aren't actually disagreeing there, you are making the same point I am. Making/Reloading your own ammo is an indication of a certain type of gun owner, which I stated. Most gunowners are not hobbyists, and I am not terribly surprised you don't know many gun hobbyists, they don't tend to life in cities. My point is that these people do exist, they are in no way more dangerous then your average gunowner, and in fact dramatically less dangerous, and there is no reason to discriminate against them. If you want to stop mass ammo hoarding, target military surplus ammo.

[NYC17]

I have no idea what your intended equation is. Rifle wounds are more damaging that small caliber handgun wounds. AR-15s are common rifles. Q E fuckin' D, I guess, but I have no idea what that's supposed to be evidence of. It's a fully general argument that suggests that the proposed solution would be a wholesale ban on rifles, which is already exactly what Second Amendment advocates suspect is the goal of gun control advocates.

I don't have a question. It's a pretty basic concept that you seem intent on not comprehending.

The velocity is only one variable. If you have the ability to inflict X amount of damage, then the popularity and characteristics inherent in an AR make the ability to cause that damage easier, deadlier, more devastating, and therefore not comparable to an M1 Garand.

- - - Updated - - -

Being part of the equation is pretty much the point. The AR-15 itself is far from unique, it isn't the weapon that you really have a problem with, it is the capability, and that capability is so wide spread that you really need to determine what it is you want to regulate. Is an Ak-47 materially different from an AR-15 in this scenario? Probably not, an FAL? SCAR? Ak-74? What about a modified Ruger 10/22? A Remington 700? Mossberg 500? These weapons are not at all similar, but they all have some, or all of the same capabilities as the AR-15, and all of them are definitely lethal.

Right now the AR-15 is trendy, for both the mass shooters and the people wanting to ban guns. Mass shooters tend to not be very creative individuals, and AR-15s are currently known as "Mass Shooting Rifles", so someone that knows nothing about guns, but wants to murder half his school is going to buy one. If you ban them, something else is going to become trendy though. A high capacity shotgun is probably much more effective in this scenario, what if they start using those?

Remember back in the early 2000s where the Washington Sniper pair were killing random people around DC by shooting from the trunk of a car? Back then the same crowd that is after AR-15s was after "Sniper rifles", which rather ironically, was actually an AR-15 variant being used in a very different way. But nobody could really define what a sniper rifle was, so nothing really happened.

Incorrect, it's not "pretty much the point". It's part of the point. Part of the equation. Part of the discussion.

If those weapons were the weapon of choice, or if they become that weapon, then that's where the discussion would center. It's really not that complicated or controversial. The article was linked to show the damage these cause and how different it is from a handgun.

But you don't have to take my word for it. Here's Ralph Peters, no ones idea of a liberal, democrat, or anything other than a right wing hack, making the argument that these weapons are different.

https://nypost.com/2018/02/22/automa...s-of-everyone/

[Felya]

You know, we found smoking in the US was harmful and we worked to reduce it, and we did, drastically. I wonder why we don't approach it more like the. We never made cigarettes illegal either. We targeted the corporations making them. We told them they had to restrict their advertising and we put restrictions on how they were made. Seems like if we don't want guns getting in people's hands, the thing to do is tell corporations to stop making all these guns. I know that telling a corporation to do a thing in the US ins heresy, but I think it would be a lot more effective than trying to regulate what guns people own.


Also where is my 10 year member badge. I was told there would be a 10 year member badge but I have a 7 year member badge. I would like to speak to the manager.

We do approach it the same way, if we is a wide net. The problem, as you can see in every thread on this topic, the goal of opposition is to always make the argument about banning guns or taking your rights away. Everyone who wants to argue preventative measures or a form of control, needs to convince people that it doesn’t include taking their guns. Something that I found impossible to do, regardless of pointing at the Assault Rifle ban in 1994, that was not retroactive or even suggesting metal detectors in schools, to avoid the whole gun thing all together. All of it has failed... it never gets passed the belief that I want guns banned, as part of some socialist scheme... not even making that last part up... NRA said it yesterday...

[Thekri]

Incorrect, it's not "pretty much the point". It's part of the point. Part of the equation. Part of the discussion.

If those weapons were the weapon of choice, or if they become that weapon, then that's where the discussion would center. It's really not that complicated or controversial. The article was linked to show the damage these cause and how different it is from a handgun.

But you don't have to take my word for it. Here's Ralph Peters, no ones idea of a liberal, democrat, or anything other than a right wing hack, making the argument that these weapons are different.

https://nypost.com/2018/02/22/automa...s-of-everyone/

Well I have done everything Ralph Peters claims as credentials, and I mostly disagree. I do agree that AR-15 style weapons (I hate calling them that, since that really isn't a thing), are designed for killing people, they are not hunting rifles (Although they are used as such frequently), or sporting rifles (Although this is by far their most common use, and what I use mine for). Their primary design and function is as a weapon, IE a tool for killing human beings. I think we have to agree this is an intellectually honest starting point for any conversation, and it galls me when other people protecting gun rights won't admit to it.

Where I don't agree is that no civilian should be allowed to own one. I am against any regulation or restriction that prevents responsible, legal gun ownership. However, I am all for regulation to keep them out of the hands of criminals, delinquents, and other people seek to harm self or others. I personally think the things that are possible to own should be expanded, but it all should get much harder to get. I actually think I am fine with requiring someone to get a state or federal license to own or operate a gun in the first place, as long as we can convince politicians not to abuse the issuing of those licenses. We require it for cars, and guns are at least as dangerous, and a lot less necessary. When my girlfriend wanted to get a gun, I trained her on how to safely handle one (With no ammo anywhere nearby), then took her to the range to fire it, and when she wasn't comfortable and I wasn't satisfied with how she handled it, we just decided she shouldn't have a gun. I think that is a reasonable minimum standard to gun ownership, show you can handle it safely, use it safely, and can pass a background check to show you aren't likely to use it to attack people.

[Felya]

Yeah more people die to handguns but that kinetic energy of an AR, oh man! I agree, its a stupid argument.

The age limit on handguns is 21, but 18 for AR 15... is this kinetic energy?

[Breccia]

Most shooters don't really care about getting shot

I posted in another thread about this: in this decade, of the school shootings in Texas alone, 4 of the 8 shot themselves. Three fatally, one in the butt. It's reasonable to believe that, maybe not "most" but clearly "many", a mass shooting is something you go into as the last thing you want to do on this Earth.

[NYC17]

Well I have done everything Ralph Peters claims as credentials, and I mostly disagree. I do agree that AR-15 style weapons (I hate calling them that, since that really isn't a thing), are designed for killing people, they are not hunting rifles (Although they are used as such frequently), or sporting rifles (Although this is by far their most common use, and what I use mine for). Their primary design and function is as a weapon, IE a tool for killing human beings. I think we have to agree this is an intellectually honest starting point for any conversation, and it galls me when other people protecting gun rights won't admit to it.

Where I don't agree is that no civilian should be allowed to own one. I am against any regulation or restriction that prevents responsible, legal gun ownership. However, I am all for regulation to keep them out of the hands of criminals, delinquents, and other people seek to harm self or others. I personally think the things that are possible to own should be expanded, but it all should get much harder to get. I actually think I am fine with requiring someone to get a state or federal license to own or operate a gun in the first place, as long as we can convince politicians not to abuse the issuing of those licenses. We require it for cars, and guns are at least as dangerous, and a lot less necessary. When my girlfriend wanted to get a gun, I trained her on how to safely handle one (With no ammo anywhere nearby), then took her to the range to fire it, and when she wasn't comfortable and I wasn't satisfied with how she handled it, we just decided she shouldn't have a gun. I think that is a reasonable minimum standard to gun ownership, show you can handle it safely, use it safely, and can pass a background check to show you aren't likely to use it to attack people.

What you or I believe is a different debate. Though I will say the problem with the lip service of "keeping them out of the hands of criminals" is that you aren't a criminal until you commit a crime. You aren't a murderer until you murder someone. You aren't a mass shooter until you commit a mass shooting. So keeping it out of their hands is great in theory and that's an easy position to take. It just doesn't mean much.

The point I was making wasn't whether or not the average citizen should or should not have it. The point was they inflict massive amounts of damage and they weren't designed for the things which the average citizen would use them for. They are designed to kill people. They are designed for war.