40 ms·

Which makes me wonder if putting state level structure around “militias” (open entry for anyone over 18, govern some aspects of sport shooting and training) wo

Which makes me wonder if putting state level structure around “militias” (open entry for anyone over 18, govern some aspects of sport shooting and training) would be an effective entry to reducing the number of semiautomatic weapons in circulation (though the numbers there are so staggering that it feels somewhat pointless).

idiotsecant 4y ago
FYI this isn't super different from how it's culturally done in certain circles in the US (although it's not universal). When I was a young teen I took a hunter's education course that covered ethical hunting, firearm safety, first aid, basic wilderness survival, etc. I would support making that sort of requirement for owning firearms universal, but I would anticipate that a lot of people would view this as a registry which is not a very attractive prospect for a lot of people.
- germinalphrase 4y ago
  This is my experience as well. I grew up in a small midwestern town. I continue to shoot and do a little bit of hunting, but the temperature around firearms and gun ownership really took a turn in the 90’s. Lots of wild conversations happening down at the conservation club. Edit: I guess my initial comment was more about a cultural/legal framework for reasonably reducing the number of semiautomatic weapons in the general populace.
  - Tool_of_Society 4y ago
    yeah the 90s is when the term "assault weapon" was pushed into the narrative in an attempt to blur the lines between a semiautomatic hunting rifle and an actual assault rifle. So that's how we end up with people calling hunting rifles "assault rifles/weapons" or "military grade weaponry". It's like dude a freaking blunderbuss is military grade weaponry. The most popular hunting rounds in the USA were originally designed for military use.
    - germinalphrase 4y ago
      Right. There really isn’t a clear difference between the two, so attempting to draw that line is foolhardy. That said, the lethality advantage of semiautomatic weapons over manually operated is obvious.
      - pclmulqdq 4y ago
        There is a very clear distinction between the two. Assault rifles have automatic (or select-fire) capabilities. One trigger pull can produce many bullets. Semi-automatic rifles, which were later called "assault weapons," can only produce one bullet per trigger pull. What makes them semi-automatic is that they automatically reload after firing. Many other types of guns also do this (eg double-action revolvers) and many take minimal movement to reload (eg lever-action and bolt-action rifles). This is a very big difference. A commercial semiautomatic rifle is only slightly more lethal than a bolt-action rifle. An assault rifle is much more lethal than both.
        germinalphrase 4y ago
        I didn’t downvote, but I don’t believe your chosen definition is widely accepted. Further, many elite soldiers will say that they rarely would put their weapons in full auto in a fire fight. I’m certainly not one of them and can’t speak to it, but I’ll take their word their semi-auto rifles are plenty lethal.
        pclmulqdq 4y ago
        If you look up the definitions in any source, that is what you will find. If there wasn't a big difference, then it wouldn't be the case that every single military in the world uses assault rifles with select-fire capability. Also, if you watch videos of actual military operations, you will find the 3-round burst used very frequently because it is a lot more lethal than semiautomatic mode. Only special ops troops tend to use semiautomatic mode for fighting (since they are better marksmen and are concerned about noise). Police also only use semiautomatic weapons, because they don't have access to automatic weapons.
  - rjbwork 4y ago
    >but the temperature around firearms and gun ownership really took a turn in the 90’s The damage to this country's social fabric done by the feds due to the Ruby Ridge and Waco massacres really cannot be understated. A LOT of people looked at that and said "ain't gonna be me, we'll kill em if they try that shit" and went and armed themselves, their families, and their neighbors to the teeth. As they say, it's not paranoia if they're actually out to get you.
    - germinalphrase 4y ago
      Materials we got from the NRA changed to.
      - rjbwork 4y ago
        Indeed. And it infiltrated gun culture completely.
    - chasd00 4y ago
      Ruby Ridge especially. I did a lot of writing on the subject freshman year English. I think it scared the crap out of a lot of people already suspicious of authority.
  - chasd00 4y ago
    You can see the change at gun shows too. Gun shows use to be 90% hunting or collectable/rare rifles. Now they’re ar15s and accessories as far as the eye can see. I’m not sure what changed, maybe the ar15 patent expired, they’ve always been around just not that popular. Then, all of a sudden, they were everywhere.
    - idiotsecant 4y ago
      AR-15s are dirt cheap to manufacture, super modular and customizable, and are really just all around great guns. There's a reason they're so popular.
    - Tool_of_Society 4y ago
      The AR-15 is basically a gun version of legos. You can buy one AR-15 lower receiver (which counts as the gun) and then just swap out uppers depending on what you're hunting.
    - everforward 4y ago
      It's a combination of access to cheap military surplus ammo, light recoil making them approachable to beginners, a standardized platform, and rails for accessories. Plus a little bit of a "badass" effect from it being based on a military weapon. Military weapons also generically have the advantage of having been tested for ruggedness, and not having to worry about being able to find parts or ammo in a decade.
- bluGill 4y ago
  There are a number of people who will use such a system as a registry they can abuse and once in a while they get political power.
  - esrauch 4y ago
    This seems like borderline deranged paranoia to me; what do you expect these powerful people to do given the registry of automatic gun owners? Are you expecting a WW2 French Revolution style situation where the moral resistance will be stronger because of the unregistered firearms? Most of these guns are bought on credit or debit cards, so the information about big ticket gun buyers probably unregulated available through Palantir or whoever.
    - coredog64 4y ago
      It doesn’t take any paranoia. There’s been several instances of journalists using FOIA requests to get the names and addresses of firearm owners and then publishing them. It just happened again in California post the recent USSC decision: An LA journalist requested the names and addresses of current permit holders.
      - esrauch 4y ago
        And then what bad thing happened? And if FOIA is really the problem (not the government knowing) then the registry could be made legally exempt from FOIA. The government keeps databases including all of your income (IRS) and your religion (the Census) but random journalists can't get the information.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - elmomle 4y ago
        I believe the paranoia is misplaced. I'm not aware of a single instance in the whole history of the US where a citizen was targeted by members of the public primarily on the basis of their owning a gun (or holding a permit)--are you?
- chasd00 4y ago
  Hunter’s Ed was included in my HS Agriculture class, we all received the little card that came with completion of the course too. In rural areas it’s pretty standard stuff.
wahern 4y ago
> Which makes me wonder if putting state level structure around “militias” (open entry for anyone over 18, govern some aspects of sport shooting and training) would be an effective entry to reducing the number of semiautomatic weapons in circulation At least in the United States, sadly that ship has sailed as SCOTUS precedent repeatedly emphasizes the 2nd Amendment as a purely individual right. The so-called preamble discussing states and militias is now formally a dead letter.
- acdha 4y ago
  > At least in the United States, sadly that ship has sailed as SCOTUS precedent repeatedly emphasizes the 2nd Amendment as a purely individual right. With the current court, yes, but that interpretation only dates back to 2008. It would be much less of a reversal than we just saw for a future court to find that Heller was decided in error, and unlike Alito’s pretense of research there’s far more historical precedent supporting the collective interpretation going back at least as far as what the people drafting the second amendment discussed when they did so, as well as two centuries of general agreement on that point.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > and unlike Alito’s pretense of research there’s far more historical precedent supporting the collective interpretation going back at least as far as what the people drafting the second amendment discussed when they did so, as well as two centuries of general agreement on that point. And, also, the prefatory clause of the text of the Amendment itself.
    - acdha 4y ago
      Yes: it would not take a legal genius to say “these words were included for a reason, here are period discussions confirming that and two centuries without serious question”.
    - refurb 4y ago
      Back when the Constitution was written, the militia was "all able bodies males" who could be called to service. It wasn't a formal organization like the military today. It was basically all male citizens. So that actually aligns with it being an individual right.
Tool_of_Society 4y ago
Unlikely as people are already producing semiautomatic firearms with consumer level 3d printer technology. There are even competitions out there already such as the Makers Match. There are some firearms part manufacturers that utilize 3d printing for part production. The company that made the first fully printed .45 1911 handgun uses printers to produce parts for sale. I grew up in the rural midwest so my firearm experience goes back to the single digits of age. It was expected I would take the firearms and hunter safety courses that the state provided. I believe that such courses should at the very least be the minimum required for anyone purchasing a gun.
- simon1ltd 4y ago
  I think the hunters safety courses should be a requirement for everyone, even those that aren’t buying a firearm — and should probably come around the age of 14/15 unless you’re going to be hunting earlier.
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  To be fair, it's only true that people are making firearms on 3d printers because what we consider the firearm in the US is unusual. In other places the portion of the machine that contains pressure is the firearm. In the US the portion of the machine that holds the trigger mechanism is considered the firearm. This leads to the easiest part of the machine to manufacture also being the only part that is illegal to manufacture in places where such a thing is illegal. It's exactly backwards from physics. Making a 3d printed firing chamber is exceedingly difficult, especially one that won't blow your hand off. Making a trigger - even a fully automatic one - is one notch above trivial.

idiotsecant 4y ago

FYI this isn't super different from how it's culturally done in certain circles in the US (although it's not universal). When I was a young teen I took a hunter's education course that covered ethical hunting, firearm safety, first aid, basic wilderness survival, etc. I would support making that sort of requirement for owning firearms universal, but I would anticipate that a lot of people would view this as a registry which is not a very attractive prospect for a lot of people.

germinalphrase 4y ago
This is my experience as well. I grew up in a small midwestern town. I continue to shoot and do a little bit of hunting, but the temperature around firearms and gun ownership really took a turn in the 90’s. Lots of wild conversations happening down at the conservation club. Edit: I guess my initial comment was more about a cultural/legal framework for reasonably reducing the number of semiautomatic weapons in the general populace.
- Tool_of_Society 4y ago
  yeah the 90s is when the term "assault weapon" was pushed into the narrative in an attempt to blur the lines between a semiautomatic hunting rifle and an actual assault rifle. So that's how we end up with people calling hunting rifles "assault rifles/weapons" or "military grade weaponry". It's like dude a freaking blunderbuss is military grade weaponry. The most popular hunting rounds in the USA were originally designed for military use.
  - germinalphrase 4y ago
    Right. There really isn’t a clear difference between the two, so attempting to draw that line is foolhardy. That said, the lethality advantage of semiautomatic weapons over manually operated is obvious.
    - pclmulqdq 4y ago
      There is a very clear distinction between the two. Assault rifles have automatic (or select-fire) capabilities. One trigger pull can produce many bullets. Semi-automatic rifles, which were later called "assault weapons," can only produce one bullet per trigger pull. What makes them semi-automatic is that they automatically reload after firing. Many other types of guns also do this (eg double-action revolvers) and many take minimal movement to reload (eg lever-action and bolt-action rifles). This is a very big difference. A commercial semiautomatic rifle is only slightly more lethal than a bolt-action rifle. An assault rifle is much more lethal than both.
      - germinalphrase 4y ago
        I didn’t downvote, but I don’t believe your chosen definition is widely accepted. Further, many elite soldiers will say that they rarely would put their weapons in full auto in a fire fight. I’m certainly not one of them and can’t speak to it, but I’ll take their word their semi-auto rifles are plenty lethal.
        pclmulqdq 4y ago
        If you look up the definitions in any source, that is what you will find. If there wasn't a big difference, then it wouldn't be the case that every single military in the world uses assault rifles with select-fire capability. Also, if you watch videos of actual military operations, you will find the 3-round burst used very frequently because it is a lot more lethal than semiautomatic mode. Only special ops troops tend to use semiautomatic mode for fighting (since they are better marksmen and are concerned about noise). Police also only use semiautomatic weapons, because they don't have access to automatic weapons.
- rjbwork 4y ago
  >but the temperature around firearms and gun ownership really took a turn in the 90’s The damage to this country's social fabric done by the feds due to the Ruby Ridge and Waco massacres really cannot be understated. A LOT of people looked at that and said "ain't gonna be me, we'll kill em if they try that shit" and went and armed themselves, their families, and their neighbors to the teeth. As they say, it's not paranoia if they're actually out to get you.
  - germinalphrase 4y ago
    Materials we got from the NRA changed to.
    - rjbwork 4y ago
      Indeed. And it infiltrated gun culture completely.
  - chasd00 4y ago
    Ruby Ridge especially. I did a lot of writing on the subject freshman year English. I think it scared the crap out of a lot of people already suspicious of authority.
- chasd00 4y ago
  You can see the change at gun shows too. Gun shows use to be 90% hunting or collectable/rare rifles. Now they’re ar15s and accessories as far as the eye can see. I’m not sure what changed, maybe the ar15 patent expired, they’ve always been around just not that popular. Then, all of a sudden, they were everywhere.
  - idiotsecant 4y ago
    AR-15s are dirt cheap to manufacture, super modular and customizable, and are really just all around great guns. There's a reason they're so popular.
  - Tool_of_Society 4y ago
    The AR-15 is basically a gun version of legos. You can buy one AR-15 lower receiver (which counts as the gun) and then just swap out uppers depending on what you're hunting.
  - everforward 4y ago
    It's a combination of access to cheap military surplus ammo, light recoil making them approachable to beginners, a standardized platform, and rails for accessories. Plus a little bit of a "badass" effect from it being based on a military weapon. Military weapons also generically have the advantage of having been tested for ruggedness, and not having to worry about being able to find parts or ammo in a decade.
bluGill 4y ago
There are a number of people who will use such a system as a registry they can abuse and once in a while they get political power.
- esrauch 4y ago
  This seems like borderline deranged paranoia to me; what do you expect these powerful people to do given the registry of automatic gun owners? Are you expecting a WW2 French Revolution style situation where the moral resistance will be stronger because of the unregistered firearms? Most of these guns are bought on credit or debit cards, so the information about big ticket gun buyers probably unregulated available through Palantir or whoever.
  - coredog64 4y ago
    It doesn’t take any paranoia. There’s been several instances of journalists using FOIA requests to get the names and addresses of firearm owners and then publishing them. It just happened again in California post the recent USSC decision: An LA journalist requested the names and addresses of current permit holders.
    - esrauch 4y ago
      And then what bad thing happened? And if FOIA is really the problem (not the government knowing) then the registry could be made legally exempt from FOIA. The government keeps databases including all of your income (IRS) and your religion (the Census) but random journalists can't get the information.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - elmomle 4y ago
      I believe the paranoia is misplaced. I'm not aware of a single instance in the whole history of the US where a citizen was targeted by members of the public primarily on the basis of their owning a gun (or holding a permit)--are you?
chasd00 4y ago
Hunter’s Ed was included in my HS Agriculture class, we all received the little card that came with completion of the course too. In rural areas it’s pretty standard stuff.

wahern 4y ago

> Which makes me wonder if putting state level structure around “militias” (open entry for anyone over 18, govern some aspects of sport shooting and training) would be an effective entry to reducing the number of semiautomatic weapons in circulation At least in the United States, sadly that ship has sailed as SCOTUS precedent repeatedly emphasizes the 2nd Amendment as a purely individual right. The so-called preamble discussing states and militias is now formally a dead letter.

acdha 4y ago
> At least in the United States, sadly that ship has sailed as SCOTUS precedent repeatedly emphasizes the 2nd Amendment as a purely individual right. With the current court, yes, but that interpretation only dates back to 2008. It would be much less of a reversal than we just saw for a future court to find that Heller was decided in error, and unlike Alito’s pretense of research there’s far more historical precedent supporting the collective interpretation going back at least as far as what the people drafting the second amendment discussed when they did so, as well as two centuries of general agreement on that point.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > and unlike Alito’s pretense of research there’s far more historical precedent supporting the collective interpretation going back at least as far as what the people drafting the second amendment discussed when they did so, as well as two centuries of general agreement on that point. And, also, the prefatory clause of the text of the Amendment itself.
  - acdha 4y ago
    Yes: it would not take a legal genius to say “these words were included for a reason, here are period discussions confirming that and two centuries without serious question”.
  - refurb 4y ago
    Back when the Constitution was written, the militia was "all able bodies males" who could be called to service. It wasn't a formal organization like the military today. It was basically all male citizens. So that actually aligns with it being an individual right.

Tool_of_Society 4y ago

Unlikely as people are already producing semiautomatic firearms with consumer level 3d printer technology. There are even competitions out there already such as the Makers Match. There are some firearms part manufacturers that utilize 3d printing for part production. The company that made the first fully printed .45 1911 handgun uses printers to produce parts for sale. I grew up in the rural midwest so my firearm experience goes back to the single digits of age. It was expected I would take the firearms and hunter safety courses that the state provided. I believe that such courses should at the very least be the minimum required for anyone purchasing a gun.

simon1ltd 4y ago
I think the hunters safety courses should be a requirement for everyone, even those that aren’t buying a firearm — and should probably come around the age of 14/15 unless you’re going to be hunting earlier.
idiotsecant 4y ago
To be fair, it's only true that people are making firearms on 3d printers because what we consider the firearm in the US is unusual. In other places the portion of the machine that contains pressure is the firearm. In the US the portion of the machine that holds the trigger mechanism is considered the firearm. This leads to the easiest part of the machine to manufacture also being the only part that is illegal to manufacture in places where such a thing is illegal. It's exactly backwards from physics. Making a 3d printed firing chamber is exceedingly difficult, especially one that won't blow your hand off. Making a trigger - even a fully automatic one - is one notch above trivial.