Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kayin]

Again, while there clearly had to be something up, having autism, assuming he did, is not generally a diagnosis where you'd describe someone as unstable. We don't know how obvious it was how fucked up the shooter was while the mother was shooting with her son.

[Brentai]

Well, his mother did express a real concern about his stability, but that was AFTER she got him into guns.  He was basically kind of a harmless, awkward dude until someone taught him how to shoot and then he got a little too into into it and when someone tried to do something about it he oh god he's gomer pyle isn't he

[Thad]

I can definitely see the point both sides are making here -- I agree that some mental conditions should definitely preclude firearm use (either through state or parental enforcement -- let's leave that argument aside for a minute), but I don't really think autism is one of them.

First, I'm not comfortable branding the shooter as autistic this early in the game; media reports are inconsistent and, at this stage in the game, I really don't trust them.  Remember how they didn't even have the right guy to begin with?  Remember after the Aurora shooting when CNN googled the guy's name and conflated him with somebody else who had the same name?  It's these guys' job to (1) fill a news cycle and (2) fit something incomprehensible into an easily-digestible narrative.

Second, while I'm perfectly receptive to the notion that there may have been warning signs that should have made the mother think twice about guns as a hobby, I don't think that's anything to do with autism.

"Blame the parents" is an easy narrative, and to be honest it's often the correct one.  And you pretty much have to at least CONSIDER it just on the grounds that it's the parent's guns that were used in the murders.

On the other hand, I think people see something unseemly about something that amounts to quite literally blaming the victim.  The woman's body wasn't even cold when people started blaming her, and she's not around to defend herself.  I can see how people are put off when somebody heaps scorn on someone who was just brutally murdered.

THAT said, I can't read a line like "She taught the boys how to use the guns responsibly" without snorting.

I don't like guns.  I'm not interested in them as a hobby.  And I think they should be restricted a lot further than they are (and the thing I hate most about Scalia is his smug hypocrisy -- "strict constructionist" whenever it suits him, but not when it comes to the Second Amendment).

But some people dig them, and most of those people don't end up killing anybody.  We've got a thread right here with several people who have diagnosed mental conditions who still enjoy firing guns, and I'm not worried about any of them shooting anybody; we've got at least one guy saying he doesn't think he should have guns, and I respect his choice on the matter.

I'm definitely willing to consider that, in this specific instance, somebody fucked up somewhere and gave a gun to somebody who shouldn't have had one.  But the reason he shouldn't have had one isn't that he was shy and socially awkward, or that he may or may not have had Asperger's.  It was something else.

There's a danger to generalizing TOO much; as Constantine's been saying from the get-go, we don't want to stigmatize the majority of the mentally ill who are not dangerous.  On the other hand, actually coming up with preventive measures against future shootings is going to REQUIRE some level of generalization; otherwise we'll be left with the kind of bullshit we've got at airports, a set of increasingly absurd half-measures designed to protect us from some very specific form of attack that somebody already tried but which is completely fucking useless in protecting us against whatever the NEXT attack may be.

It's late and I'm rambling.  But hopefully there's something useful and coherent in all that?

[Brentai]

tl;dr we need profiling but don't have enough data to build a useful or justified profile.

[Royal☭]

Ultimately it comes down to whether you think we can do a better job policing violently insane people or a better job keeping automatic rifles out of their hands.

[Thad]

tl;dr we need profiling but don't have enough data to build a useful or justified profile.

Oh, I think we've got plenty of data points.  I just think we should be looking at all of them, not just this one.

[Kayin]

I wrote a thing about guns -- mainly 'assault rifles' and what those actually are and why banning them is kinda silly. I do this not to argue against gun control, but to avoid gun control that is wholey superficial and meant to just make us feel better.

The short of it is that not only are civilian assault weapons not meaningfully more deadly than other guns, they're actually LESS deadly due to the removal of automatic fire.

[TA]

That's absolute nonsense, though.  Full auto is pointless for anything but suppression, and actively counterproductive if you're trying to commit a massacre.  The characteristics banned by the Assault Weapons ban are things that make guns either significantly more effective at killing large crowds of people or significantly easier to conceal, which are exactly what the law is supposed to counteract.

[Mongrel]

Would the problem then be that the ban on assault weapons is poorly understood and not explained well? Because a "ban on assault weapons" seems like what it says in the tin, a ban on assault weapons, which most members of the public think of as M16s, AK47s, and other obviously "military" rifles etc. (I know this is not quite the case, but I did not know there are any aspects of the law dealing with concealment or modification of non-military weapons).

[Bal]

You know who else disables the full auto feature of the M16? The U.S. Military. Because it's a waste of fucking bullets, among other things. You know how easy it is to buy a totally legal full auto mod kit at a gun show? About as easy as buying the drum magazine one stall over.

[TA]

Would the problem then be that the ban on assault weapons is poorly understood and not explained well? Because a "ban on assault weapons" seems like what it says in the tin, a ban on assault weapons, which most members of the public think of as M16s, AK47s, and other obviously "military" rifles etc. (I know this is not quite the case, but I did not know there are any aspects of the law dealing with concealment or modification of non-military weapons).

Active misinformation from the pro-gun lobby, like that "It's banning weapons just because they look dangerous" or "they're actually LESS deadly due to the removal of automatic fire" is a big part of it too.

[Kayin]

That's absolute nonsense, though.  Full auto is pointless for anything but suppression, and actively counterproductive if you're trying to commit a massacre.  The characteristics banned by the Assault Weapons ban are things that make guns either significantly more effective at killing large crowds of people or significantly easier to conceal, which are exactly what the law is supposed to counteract.

Suppression fire and burst fire are big deals and the main reason for the use of intermediate rounds.  Military assault rifle rounds are smaller, less power rounds than rifle rounds. Now you can argue "Well yes, that's WHY we made intermediate rounds, but now we keep them both for weight and for controllabilty purposes, so these rounds ARE deadlier than their bigger, relative unwieldy cousins" but they ALSO get chambered in many other civilian guns. You can also argue that removing auto doesn't remove lethality because suppression fire is not meant strictly for killing, but at the end of the day, it comes back to the same point: These guns aren't designed for maximum lethality, they're designed for many other tactical reasons, which are often irrelevant outside of warfare.

What in the law targets a weapons ability to kill more people? Here is the basics of it from wikipedia..

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

The big part here that's relevent is the detachable magazine. Any semi automatic rifle with a detachable magazine has quite similar potentials for lethality. Folding stock is arguable from a concealment perspective, but atop that you have a pistol grip (which really is more a matter of comfort), bayonet mount (... which... honestly is something that will probably never come up), ability to receive flash suppressors (which you really can't get, and never really have been a factor in these kinds of shooting) and the so called 'grenade launcher' which isn't actually that thing it says, but the design that let old WW2 rifle grenades work -- which you ALSO can't get.... and again, you can HAVE at least one of these features and get away with it. The BEST thing to come out of that law was the limitation on magazine size, ESPECIALLY because it also effected guns that weren't labeled as assault rifles.

Focusing on 'assault weapons' while ignoring the similar deadliness of all semi automatic rifles is negligent.

If you disagree with this you need to actually point out what parts of the law had a real benefits.

Let me be clear. I'm a gun hobbyist. I enjoy shooting. But I'm not inherently against gun control, even strict gun control. What I'm saying if anything is that if you ARE going to do a ban like this, you need to GO FARTHER.

[Shinra]

Uh, TA.

It actually did ban the M16 the last time the ban was in effect. (And the AK, and the G43, and the FAL, and the FAMAS, and...) and It banned almost every major production assault rifle. The reason you could still obtain them is that the ban doesn't apply to existing stock, it only applies to guns made after the ban. That, and you could buy kits to convert existing guns to the AK/M16, which is the same case as full auto and supressors and every other thing that's technically illegal.

For the record: it wouldn't ban either of the guns that the shooter used to perform the last massacre. The only gun it would ban is the one he left in his car. And he'd still be able to get a gun that does the same thing, it would just be marginally less comfortable to hold.

Additionally, if you pay a little extra you'll still be able to get old stock guns, extended mags, conversion kits, etc. They just get progressively more expensive over time. Near the sunset of the brady ban, an M16 was probably 3-5k. And you could get financing. That was after more than ten years of it being illegal to own. Adjusted for inflation, the price didn't even double.

The problem with assault weapons bans is mostly that it targets a bunch of things that are innocuous and don't prevent mass shootings because they're not the reason that mass shootings happen in the first place. Licensing, registration, and much more thorough background checks would do more to prevent shootings than keeping these weapons of the market entirely. The ban is just posturing because the real solution would actually cost money.

edit: the most hilarious part of the Brady ban was where the PSG-1 was specifically named in the bill as a dangerous assault weapon and was banned. By name.

The PSG-1 is one of the most expensive weapons ever made, and the only people in the US who own one are wealthy collectors. Because it costs as much as a brand new kia.

[Kayin]

edit: the most hilarious part of the Brady ban was where the PSG-1 was specifically named in the bill as a dangerous assault weapon and was banned. By name.

The PSG-1 is one of the most expensive weapons ever made, and the only people in the US who own one are wealthy collectors. Because it costs as much as a brand new kia.

Yeah that's another part of this. Most military weapons also have to balance cost in a way a lot of say, 'macho' hunting weapons do not. The PSG-1, while an excellent gun, sees very little military use for that reason. It DOES see a lot of use on swat teams though, for police districts that have money burning a hole in their pocket. -_-

Also going to throw something else out there, since everyone is so concerned with assault weapons: If I were to go kill a lot of people? .45s. Pistols. The Virginia Tech killer killed 30+ people with pistols and pistols are responsible for FAAAAR more deaths than rifles. Light, easy to use, easy to carry more ammo, easier to reload and manage than a rifle. The advantages of of an assault weapon or even any semi-automatic rifle seem minimal in the context in which most of these shootings happen.

[Mongrel]

Yeah, I think it's pretty common knowledge that when assault rifles are banned, the manufacturers just sell near-identical production models without automatic fire capability. And then you just go and buy the totally legal-to-buy conversion kit with cash at the next gun show.

[Kayin]

Yeah, I think it's pretty common knowledge that when assault rifles are banned, the manufacturers just sell near-identical production models without automatic fire capability. And then you just go and buy the totally legal-to-buy conversion kit with cash at the next gun show.

To be clear, since this reads a little funny: You haven't been able to get automatic weapons legally since the 30s. So it isn't, in regards to the more recent federal assault rifle ban, like this: "Oh these automatic weapons are banned but you can convert guns to be like them and make them automatic again", it's "You can convert a semi automatic rifle to be like the civilian semi automatic rifle that was available pre-ban. ALSO (regardless of the ban) you can convert these to automatics".

Though as a note, crimes with automatic weapons are fortunately super uncommon. The only case I can think of was that crazy bank robbery in california with the guys in full body armor years and years ago.

[Joxam]

The problem with the assault weapons ban, at this point, and at the point it was first introduced though, was almost entirely the fact that there were already way too many assault weapons in circulation to make any 'ban' on them worthwhile.

I love guns.

We own a half a dozen handguns alone.

That being said, I don't think anyone who owns guns responsibility in this country doesn't want some form of comprehensive 'gun control'. I think the problem is, most people don't understand what that means because of the lobby machine's constant vindication of 'gun control'. There needs to be comprehensive reworking of the law surrounding how ALL guns are bought, owned and sold in this country on all sides of the transaction. From proper background checks and mandatory gun safety courses, all the way to criminal penalties for people and businesses who ignore these requirements, to private sales being treated like public gun sales legally.

[Shinra]

Well, the idiots crafting legislation seem to think that gun control is BAN MURDER GUNS and not 'spent a couple of billion dollars a year doing deep background checks and requiring a psych eval before selling a handgun or machinegun to somebody'.

[Kayin]

Actually there is a lot of stuff like that for owning an honest to god machinegun. And then stuff like fingerprints on file, EXTENSIVE backround check, psych eval, etc etc etc and the weapon cannot be sold or transferred with federal paper work and a whole lot of shit. Violence with weapons under these sorts of restrictions are super rare (I think it was like.. 6 deaths in 20 years?) and there are still a quarter of a million of them out there, so it's not like it's because only 3 guys are allowed to own machineguns.

This might be something close to the model needed for proper gun regulation, outside the fact that, I believe, getting a Class 3 weapons license is a 'may issue' thing (meaning not only do you need to do a ton of stuff, you gotta convince your local sheriff to even allow you to do it). If you wanna make life easier on some gunowners especially in more rural states, allow bolt action rifles to be the least regulated firearm, as they are perhaps the most practical and cover most legitimate use cases.

[Rico]

That being said, I don't think anyone who owns guns responsibility in this country doesn't want some form of comprehensive 'gun control'.

I own a handgun*, and I've stopped a break-in with it but never had to fire. I also live in a state with no required training and Shall Issue concealed pistol licenses and it makes me nervous. I stopped carrying a few years ago because even though I like shooting as a hobby ammo is expensive as hell and I didn't feel like I should carry if I wasn't practicing regularly, but I know people who are not that conscientious about it.

It's a complicated issue. If I heard a proposed law that would do a good job, I would write my congressman about supporting it, but the majority of gun violence is one-offs—not massacres—and legislation only gets talked about after massacres, and that legislation is generally ineffective at stopping either problem. I've also experienced first-hand the axiom, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." Like virtually every other serious issue in this country, it requires serious dialogue to craft solutions to, but our political system is only interested in masturbating to Facebook posts comparing purchasing a gun to acquiring a driver's license for your car which you can buy unregulated.

*with hi-cap magazines omgomgomg