7 ms·

>Restricting guns, ammo, attachments, magazine sizes etc are not effective forms of gun control imo Why? And the argument of "it's too hard because of the vol

>Restricting guns, ammo, attachments, magazine sizes etc are not effective forms of gun control imo Why? And the argument of "it's too hard because of the volume already sold" doesn't wash.

californical 4y ago
Because a criminal will just get illegal attachments or larger magazines anyways. I haven’t looked, but I’d imagine it’s pretty easy to find some online from overseas. Or criminals can steal them from legitimate places.
- crate_barre 4y ago
- phs318u 4y ago
  But it’s not what one would typically class as “the criminal element” committing mass shootings in churches, schools, or other community spaces. It’s the whackjobs right?
- multjoy 4y ago
  Do criminals who aren't mass/school shooters actually use larger magazines and illegal attachments? And does the requirement to steal/import/manufacture/buy on the black market make it easier to buy on impulse, or harder?
  - jstarfish 4y ago
    > Do criminals who aren't mass/school shooters actually use larger magazines and illegal attachments? Both are used in gang warfare and assassinations.
    - multjoy 4y ago
      Something that is irrelevant when we're discussing the 27th school shooting in 2022.
- jstarfish 4y ago
  > a criminal will just get illegal attachments or larger magazines anyways The point is to frustrate those efforts. > I’d imagine it’s pretty easy to find some online from overseas. Good! Now you've added new points of failure. It would just be terrible if that high-capacity magazine they bought from a sketchy vendor were to jam in the field. > criminals can steal them from legitimate places. ...which increases the risk of getting caught before anything worse happens.
  - chroma 4y ago
    It is comically easy to modify or manufacture magazines. A lot of 10 round magazines are just standard mags with a spacer. I used to live in California. Every time I went shooting in Nevada, I'd remove the spacers, turning my 10 round magazines into 50 round mags, then change them back before I returned. If you look at photos of confiscated guns in California, very few have 10 round magazines. Scrolling through SFPD's twitter, I can only find photos of illegal guns with illegal magazines.[1][2][3] The second photo is of a Polymer80, which is a pistol you can make at home using a dremel and a hand drill. They're compatible with Glock parts and quite reliable. These laws do nothing to reduce violent crime. The main effect is to annoy law-abiding gun owners. When I moved out of California, it took me maybe 30 minutes to undo all the CA-specific modifications on my guns. 1. https://twitter.com/SFPD/status/1511846273644589058 https://twitter.com/SFPD/status/1511846273644589058 2. https://twitter.com/SFPD/status/1509268939292872707 https://twitter.com/SFPD/status/1509268939292872707 3. https://twitter.com/SFPD/status/1506372044492972035 https://twitter.com/SFPD/status/1506372044492972035
- piva00 4y ago
  A criminal, in a gang, with access to the black market, might do that. It's still much more friction than simply going to a gun show or a state where there are no questions asked when you purchase a weapon. A school-age kid very likely not. Gun control isn't supposed to stop all criminals from getting guns, if there's a will, there's a way. As Jim Jefferies puts pretty well: there's almost no reason to own a gun if you aren't a hunter except for that you like guns. That is ok on a personal freedom level but has pretty harsh consequences to a society when at scale...
  - lliamander 4y ago
    > As Jim Jefferies puts pretty well: there's almost no reason to own a gun if you aren't a hunter except for that you like guns. There are (conservatively) hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses per year in the United States, and evidence to suggest this actually lowers the rates of various types of violent crimes (including "hot robberies", where the home owner is still in the house when it is being burglarized). The right to self-defense is a foundational human right, and logically entailed from that is the right to effective means of self-defense.
    - arinlen 4y ago
      > There are (conservatively) hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses per year in the United States, and evidence to suggest this actually lowers the rates of various types of violent crimes (including "hot robberies", where the home owner is still in the house when it is being burglarized). Source?
      - lliamander 4y ago
        > Defensive Use of Guns > Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18319 https://doi.org/10.17226/18319. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18319/chapter/3#15 https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18319/chapter/3#15
- Accacin 4y ago
  I'm sorry if I'm asking a stupid question, and I'm genuinely curious. I hear that line of reasoning often, "well criminals would do it anyway", but is that really true? In the UK, guns are heavily restricted and we definitely have criminals but our gun crime is very low. There must be some reason these criminals are not using guns? I'd wager that it's because most people do not have guns, so they're harder to access, less chance of criminals being able to access. Wouldn't that be the same in the US too?
  - hutzlibu 4y ago
    I do agree, that it is very possible to reduce the number of guns around and that then it is also harder for criminals to get one. But as far as I know, now it is also pretty much illegal to carry a knive around in the UK, as the crime with knives were and are very high (but still lower than the US). But in general I do not agree to the idea to reduce the problem to the number of guns. Germany for example has a quite high number of guns per capita (higher than one would expect) and so has switzerland, but both have lower homicide rates than the UK. I would rather focus on the reasons, why someone goes homicidal.
  - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
    Nope. US already has a lot of weapons, and getting them illegaly is a lot easier, than in UK, where they literally have to smuggle them from abroad, and being an island makes it even harder. I live in the balkans, and getting a gun here is very hard, almost impossible. People still get shot, and during the "wild 90s" here, there were a lot of shootings, even mass ones (not during the war, but after, or in in-war areas). The only difference is, that we have "different criminals" here, so when someone gets shot, both the shooter and the shot person usually know why they're shooting and why they're being shot, and it's rarely without a good reason.
    - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
      >The only difference is, that we have "different criminals" here, so when someone gets shot, both the shooter and the shot person usually know why they're shooting and why they're being shot, and it's rarely without a good reason. No, you don't. The overwhelming majority of murders in the US follow the same pattern. Basically the drug industry DIYing the the kind of violent enforcement of business disputes that "real businesses" use courts and state violence for. People going postal is a rounding error.
- philderbeast 4y ago
  Except most mass shootings are not done by criminals, they are done by people that walked down to the shops and bought them selves an assault rifle to commit these acts with. Not to mention making these kind of things makes the criminals that are doing this stand out, and that is something they generally want to avoid.
concordDance 4y ago
Because you save very few lives with such restrictions. They are relevant to only a tiny fraction of shootings.
- multjoy 4y ago
  Such as school shootings?
  - throwntoday 4y ago
    The majority of mass shootings take place in minority neighborhoods, not in schools. By the OP's logic we should just ban minorities from owning guns and we would reduce mass shootings and gun violence by over 50%. Perhaps you can see why that is a stupid way of going about things.
- meheleventyone 4y ago
  But there are more people involved than just those killed. Think of the effort, time and trauma involved in years and years of active shooter drills. We can’t just centre the tragedies and ignore the deeper effects of them.
  - ryan93 4y ago
    There is no trauma in active shooter drills. Not that I don’t think gun control Is worthwhile.
    - meheleventyone 4y ago
      There isn’t? I don’t think you’re considering the mental impact of that sort of preparation and drilling. Particularly on young children. Particularly when it hits the more extreme simulation end of the spectrum with role played shooters and trying to trick classes into opening doors with screaming classmates outside. For example: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-021-00993-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-021-00993-6 I’d expect people to deflect, minimise or argue that the trade off is worthwhile but blanket denial is pretty odd given the circumstances. There are after all plenty of articles interviewing parents and kids who have been affected as well as research.
numpad0 4y ago
Those gun people just knows because at this point they've fought and (lawfully) circumvented those restrictions for larger fraction of the last century. Notice how quick and comprehensively he listed them. IMO a lot of them just wants the "real thing" and not necessarily wanting a lethal instrument, so leading majority to non-firing/less lethal subgenres makes sense. They don't need a real working three-stamp Stormtrooper AR9 for 9mm Monday, but that's just my opinion.
throwaway0a5e 4y ago
>Why? Because we tried it for a decade and it did various shades of nothing.

>Restricting guns, ammo, attachments, magazine sizes etc are not effective forms of gun control imo Why? And the argument of "it's too hard because of the volume already sold" doesn't wash.

californical 4y ago

Because a criminal will just get illegal attachments or larger magazines anyways. I haven’t looked, but I’d imagine it’s pretty easy to find some online from overseas. Or criminals can steal them from legitimate places.

crate_barre 4y ago
phs318u 4y ago
But it’s not what one would typically class as “the criminal element” committing mass shootings in churches, schools, or other community spaces. It’s the whackjobs right?
multjoy 4y ago
Do criminals who aren't mass/school shooters actually use larger magazines and illegal attachments? And does the requirement to steal/import/manufacture/buy on the black market make it easier to buy on impulse, or harder?
- jstarfish 4y ago
  > Do criminals who aren't mass/school shooters actually use larger magazines and illegal attachments? Both are used in gang warfare and assassinations.
  - multjoy 4y ago
    Something that is irrelevant when we're discussing the 27th school shooting in 2022.
jstarfish 4y ago
> a criminal will just get illegal attachments or larger magazines anyways The point is to frustrate those efforts. > I’d imagine it’s pretty easy to find some online from overseas. Good! Now you've added new points of failure. It would just be terrible if that high-capacity magazine they bought from a sketchy vendor were to jam in the field. > criminals can steal them from legitimate places. ...which increases the risk of getting caught before anything worse happens.
- chroma 4y ago
  It is comically easy to modify or manufacture magazines. A lot of 10 round magazines are just standard mags with a spacer. I used to live in California. Every time I went shooting in Nevada, I'd remove the spacers, turning my 10 round magazines into 50 round mags, then change them back before I returned. If you look at photos of confiscated guns in California, very few have 10 round magazines. Scrolling through SFPD's twitter, I can only find photos of illegal guns with illegal magazines.[1][2][3] The second photo is of a Polymer80, which is a pistol you can make at home using a dremel and a hand drill. They're compatible with Glock parts and quite reliable. These laws do nothing to reduce violent crime. The main effect is to annoy law-abiding gun owners. When I moved out of California, it took me maybe 30 minutes to undo all the CA-specific modifications on my guns. 1. https://twitter.com/SFPD/status/1511846273644589058 https://twitter.com/SFPD/status/1511846273644589058 2. https://twitter.com/SFPD/status/1509268939292872707 https://twitter.com/SFPD/status/1509268939292872707 3. https://twitter.com/SFPD/status/1506372044492972035 https://twitter.com/SFPD/status/1506372044492972035
piva00 4y ago
A criminal, in a gang, with access to the black market, might do that. It's still much more friction than simply going to a gun show or a state where there are no questions asked when you purchase a weapon. A school-age kid very likely not. Gun control isn't supposed to stop all criminals from getting guns, if there's a will, there's a way. As Jim Jefferies puts pretty well: there's almost no reason to own a gun if you aren't a hunter except for that you like guns. That is ok on a personal freedom level but has pretty harsh consequences to a society when at scale...
- lliamander 4y ago
  > As Jim Jefferies puts pretty well: there's almost no reason to own a gun if you aren't a hunter except for that you like guns. There are (conservatively) hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses per year in the United States, and evidence to suggest this actually lowers the rates of various types of violent crimes (including "hot robberies", where the home owner is still in the house when it is being burglarized). The right to self-defense is a foundational human right, and logically entailed from that is the right to effective means of self-defense.
  - arinlen 4y ago
    > There are (conservatively) hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses per year in the United States, and evidence to suggest this actually lowers the rates of various types of violent crimes (including "hot robberies", where the home owner is still in the house when it is being burglarized). Source?
    - lliamander 4y ago
      > Defensive Use of Guns > Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18319 https://doi.org/10.17226/18319. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18319/chapter/3#15 https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18319/chapter/3#15
Accacin 4y ago
I'm sorry if I'm asking a stupid question, and I'm genuinely curious. I hear that line of reasoning often, "well criminals would do it anyway", but is that really true? In the UK, guns are heavily restricted and we definitely have criminals but our gun crime is very low. There must be some reason these criminals are not using guns? I'd wager that it's because most people do not have guns, so they're harder to access, less chance of criminals being able to access. Wouldn't that be the same in the US too?
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  I do agree, that it is very possible to reduce the number of guns around and that then it is also harder for criminals to get one. But as far as I know, now it is also pretty much illegal to carry a knive around in the UK, as the crime with knives were and are very high (but still lower than the US). But in general I do not agree to the idea to reduce the problem to the number of guns. Germany for example has a quite high number of guns per capita (higher than one would expect) and so has switzerland, but both have lower homicide rates than the UK. I would rather focus on the reasons, why someone goes homicidal.
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  Nope. US already has a lot of weapons, and getting them illegaly is a lot easier, than in UK, where they literally have to smuggle them from abroad, and being an island makes it even harder. I live in the balkans, and getting a gun here is very hard, almost impossible. People still get shot, and during the "wild 90s" here, there were a lot of shootings, even mass ones (not during the war, but after, or in in-war areas). The only difference is, that we have "different criminals" here, so when someone gets shot, both the shooter and the shot person usually know why they're shooting and why they're being shot, and it's rarely without a good reason.
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    >The only difference is, that we have "different criminals" here, so when someone gets shot, both the shooter and the shot person usually know why they're shooting and why they're being shot, and it's rarely without a good reason. No, you don't. The overwhelming majority of murders in the US follow the same pattern. Basically the drug industry DIYing the the kind of violent enforcement of business disputes that "real businesses" use courts and state violence for. People going postal is a rounding error.
philderbeast 4y ago
Except most mass shootings are not done by criminals, they are done by people that walked down to the shops and bought them selves an assault rifle to commit these acts with. Not to mention making these kind of things makes the criminals that are doing this stand out, and that is something they generally want to avoid.

concordDance 4y ago

Because you save very few lives with such restrictions. They are relevant to only a tiny fraction of shootings.

multjoy 4y ago
Such as school shootings?
- throwntoday 4y ago
  The majority of mass shootings take place in minority neighborhoods, not in schools. By the OP's logic we should just ban minorities from owning guns and we would reduce mass shootings and gun violence by over 50%. Perhaps you can see why that is a stupid way of going about things.
meheleventyone 4y ago
But there are more people involved than just those killed. Think of the effort, time and trauma involved in years and years of active shooter drills. We can’t just centre the tragedies and ignore the deeper effects of them.
- ryan93 4y ago
  There is no trauma in active shooter drills. Not that I don’t think gun control Is worthwhile.
  - meheleventyone 4y ago
    There isn’t? I don’t think you’re considering the mental impact of that sort of preparation and drilling. Particularly on young children. Particularly when it hits the more extreme simulation end of the spectrum with role played shooters and trying to trick classes into opening doors with screaming classmates outside. For example: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-021-00993-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-021-00993-6 I’d expect people to deflect, minimise or argue that the trade off is worthwhile but blanket denial is pretty odd given the circumstances. There are after all plenty of articles interviewing parents and kids who have been affected as well as research.

numpad0 4y ago

Those gun people just knows because at this point they've fought and (lawfully) circumvented those restrictions for larger fraction of the last century. Notice how quick and comprehensively he listed them. IMO a lot of them just wants the "real thing" and not necessarily wanting a lethal instrument, so leading majority to non-firing/less lethal subgenres makes sense. They don't need a real working three-stamp Stormtrooper AR9 for 9mm Monday, but that's just my opinion.

throwaway0a5e 4y ago

>Why? Because we tried it for a decade and it did various shades of nothing.