6 ms·

If detachable magazines are your issue then New York still allows them with 10 rounds or less on both pistols and long rifles. Phrasing that as "reasonable peop

by oooyay 2y ago

If detachable magazines are your issue then New York still allows them with 10 rounds or less on both pistols and long rifles. Phrasing that as "reasonable people" is a bit of a trap. I'm a leftist, have been all my life, that likes gun control in the form of: - finger printing - background checks - no sale registries - psych evals - closing private sale (non FFL) and gun convention loopholes New Yorks style of gun control is not what I think is effective or reasonable. It's just making the process more arduous and arbitrary without effecting the illegal sale market, where most of these crimes statistically occur. Edit: Throwing a point in post edit: Detachable magazines are actually not the deciding factor in the SAFE act. You can have a detachable magazine, just not when combined with a muzzle device (eg: a muzzle break or compensator).

tptacek 2y ago
The question here isn't whether existing gun control measures are effective (they are not, for multiple reasons). If I was elected emperor, my first step would not be to "ban assault weapons". The question here is whether there exists a meaningful category of weapons called "assault weapons" (yes: the semi-automatic and select-fire long guns with detachable magazines, which were designed as weapons of war) and whether they are more dangerous than other legal firearms (yes).
- gruez 2y ago
  >The question here is whether there exists a meaningful category of weapons called "assault weapons" (yes: the semi-automatic and select-fire long guns with detachable magazines, which were designed as weapons of war) and whether they are more dangerous than other legal firearms (yes). No. Both you and the people you're arguing against think that the category of "assault weapons" exist, but you're using your own definition whereas others are using the legal definition. Why are you clinging so hard to the phrase "assault weapons" specifically? People who are using the legal definition have a pretty strong claim to that definition, because it's literally enshrined in law. Why not say "guns with detachable magazines" or whatever and save everyone from pointless word lawyering?
- oooyay 2y ago
  If think you're following some revisionist history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magazine_(firearms) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magazine_(firearms). Magazines predate the military's use of them. The earliest form of a magazine was the repeating rifle and it predates the Civil War. Clips, the earlier form of what we colloquially call a magazine, evolved through the same way. Where it converges was with the development of the M1 Garand that took a clip during WWII: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand None of this, as I said, is effectual to solving the problem people want to solve so the discussion is kind of moot. "Assault Weapon" is a grouping that some politicians came up with based on arbitrary characteristics. I think it's useful for appealing to their voter base that doesn't want to think too much about solving the actual problem of people who want to cause violence using gun. Beyond that, the term loses value rapidly.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    There's a thread here (I'm not going to search for it right now, you can) where I pasted the earlier version of the AWB I'm talking about, so, no, I'm not, but this is just part of the dance. We're not going to convince each other, and I'm not trying to. I'm just going to make the case --- I think I've got it locked down and it's probably not worth pushing back, but you do you --- that this is not as settled as the root comment made it sound. That's a very narrow, parsimonious claim, which is part of what makes it easy to defend.
    - oooyay 2y ago
      Gun control laws certainly aren't settled. I'm passionate about them, but I'm also passionate about people taking an attempt in one state and broadcast it as the standard. Especially when that standard term is also defined federally as something entirely else. Time will go on, these discussions will continue to happen, and we'll have different outcomes. It's fine, and thanks for taking the time to discuss it with me.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        No, my claim is even narrower than that; I'm not asking you to argue against gun control laws. I concede that point. I'm saying the question of whether "assault weapons" are uniquely dangerous is unsettled. Lots of things are uniquely dangerous; backyard pools, for instance. In this case, all I'm saying is: it's not a settled matter that the weapons people commonly refer to as "assault weapons" (semi-automatic long guns) are more or less dangerous than handguns. I think they are quite a bit more dangerous, but all I'm saying here is the matter is unsettled.
15155 2y ago
> finger printing Why? > background checks These are being done, what else? > psych evals Ah, a subjective means to deny rights. Also, who is paying for this? Maybe you should have to have a psych eval to cast a vote. > gun convention loopholes Yesterday's compromise to pass the Brady bill is now being referred to as a "loophole." Do you see why that might make folks concerned about a restrictive agenda?
- oooyay 2y ago
  Most of what I'm following here is existing state based CHL checks. Those are reasonable, provide benefits (expedited sales), and are effective in that CHL holders are not typically the people that those people are trying to prevent sale to. Brady I don't have much of an opinion on. I do know, as a value, that I buy all of my firearms through a licensed FFL. It's at most $50 + shipping. I don't think that's too restrictive.
  - 15155 2y ago
    Okay, can we expand these restrictions to voting? If not, why?
    - oooyay 2y ago
      I updated my comment before you commented and added: > Brady I don't have much of an opinion on. I do know, as a value, that I buy all of my firearms through a licensed FFL. It's at most $50 + shipping. I don't think that's too restrictive. I think we, as gun owners, do need to acknowledge there are people who go to gun shows to illegally acquire weapons or perform strawman sales with relative ease. Maybe my solution isn't the best, but it does need addressing. If you really want to tread into analoging ownership to voting I think you'll be very disappointed. We require a lot of hurdles to vote. You have to go to an authorized voting location (akin to going to an FFL), you have to present ID that is known to the state so they can correlate that you are, in fact, in the right place (all those checks I mentioned), and afterwards they determine whether everyone who voted was eligible to vote. If they weren't, they're charged with a serious crime.
hilsdev 2y ago
The “reasonable people” phrase is so abused in this debate. “If you disagree with my logic, you’re not a reasonable person” is rhetoric that would not fly in any other debate setting but is standard in the discussion of firearm laws
- tptacek 2y ago
  I think if you read more carefully you'll see that is not in fact what I said.
  - hilsdev 2y ago
    You can’t declare one group reasonable without implying the other side is unreasonable. Your phrasing and framing was more nuanced than most I admit Reasonable is both a legal term used in legislation and a term that appears in gun debates at a disproportionate ratio.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      Once again: this observation is inapposite.

by oooyay 2y ago

tptacek 2y ago

The question here isn't whether existing gun control measures are effective (they are not, for multiple reasons). If I was elected emperor, my first step would not be to "ban assault weapons". The question here is whether there exists a meaningful category of weapons called "assault weapons" (yes: the semi-automatic and select-fire long guns with detachable magazines, which were designed as weapons of war) and whether they are more dangerous than other legal firearms (yes).

gruez 2y ago
>The question here is whether there exists a meaningful category of weapons called "assault weapons" (yes: the semi-automatic and select-fire long guns with detachable magazines, which were designed as weapons of war) and whether they are more dangerous than other legal firearms (yes). No. Both you and the people you're arguing against think that the category of "assault weapons" exist, but you're using your own definition whereas others are using the legal definition. Why are you clinging so hard to the phrase "assault weapons" specifically? People who are using the legal definition have a pretty strong claim to that definition, because it's literally enshrined in law. Why not say "guns with detachable magazines" or whatever and save everyone from pointless word lawyering?
oooyay 2y ago
If think you're following some revisionist history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magazine_(firearms) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magazine_(firearms). Magazines predate the military's use of them. The earliest form of a magazine was the repeating rifle and it predates the Civil War. Clips, the earlier form of what we colloquially call a magazine, evolved through the same way. Where it converges was with the development of the M1 Garand that took a clip during WWII: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand None of this, as I said, is effectual to solving the problem people want to solve so the discussion is kind of moot. "Assault Weapon" is a grouping that some politicians came up with based on arbitrary characteristics. I think it's useful for appealing to their voter base that doesn't want to think too much about solving the actual problem of people who want to cause violence using gun. Beyond that, the term loses value rapidly.
- tptacek 2y ago
  There's a thread here (I'm not going to search for it right now, you can) where I pasted the earlier version of the AWB I'm talking about, so, no, I'm not, but this is just part of the dance. We're not going to convince each other, and I'm not trying to. I'm just going to make the case --- I think I've got it locked down and it's probably not worth pushing back, but you do you --- that this is not as settled as the root comment made it sound. That's a very narrow, parsimonious claim, which is part of what makes it easy to defend.
  - oooyay 2y ago
    Gun control laws certainly aren't settled. I'm passionate about them, but I'm also passionate about people taking an attempt in one state and broadcast it as the standard. Especially when that standard term is also defined federally as something entirely else. Time will go on, these discussions will continue to happen, and we'll have different outcomes. It's fine, and thanks for taking the time to discuss it with me.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      No, my claim is even narrower than that; I'm not asking you to argue against gun control laws. I concede that point. I'm saying the question of whether "assault weapons" are uniquely dangerous is unsettled. Lots of things are uniquely dangerous; backyard pools, for instance. In this case, all I'm saying is: it's not a settled matter that the weapons people commonly refer to as "assault weapons" (semi-automatic long guns) are more or less dangerous than handguns. I think they are quite a bit more dangerous, but all I'm saying here is the matter is unsettled.

15155 2y ago

> finger printing Why? > background checks These are being done, what else? > psych evals Ah, a subjective means to deny rights. Also, who is paying for this? Maybe you should have to have a psych eval to cast a vote. > gun convention loopholes Yesterday's compromise to pass the Brady bill is now being referred to as a "loophole." Do you see why that might make folks concerned about a restrictive agenda?

oooyay 2y ago
Most of what I'm following here is existing state based CHL checks. Those are reasonable, provide benefits (expedited sales), and are effective in that CHL holders are not typically the people that those people are trying to prevent sale to. Brady I don't have much of an opinion on. I do know, as a value, that I buy all of my firearms through a licensed FFL. It's at most $50 + shipping. I don't think that's too restrictive.
- 15155 2y ago
  Okay, can we expand these restrictions to voting? If not, why?
  - oooyay 2y ago
    I updated my comment before you commented and added: > Brady I don't have much of an opinion on. I do know, as a value, that I buy all of my firearms through a licensed FFL. It's at most $50 + shipping. I don't think that's too restrictive. I think we, as gun owners, do need to acknowledge there are people who go to gun shows to illegally acquire weapons or perform strawman sales with relative ease. Maybe my solution isn't the best, but it does need addressing. If you really want to tread into analoging ownership to voting I think you'll be very disappointed. We require a lot of hurdles to vote. You have to go to an authorized voting location (akin to going to an FFL), you have to present ID that is known to the state so they can correlate that you are, in fact, in the right place (all those checks I mentioned), and afterwards they determine whether everyone who voted was eligible to vote. If they weren't, they're charged with a serious crime.

hilsdev 2y ago

The “reasonable people” phrase is so abused in this debate. “If you disagree with my logic, you’re not a reasonable person” is rhetoric that would not fly in any other debate setting but is standard in the discussion of firearm laws

tptacek 2y ago
I think if you read more carefully you'll see that is not in fact what I said.
- hilsdev 2y ago
  You can’t declare one group reasonable without implying the other side is unreasonable. Your phrasing and framing was more nuanced than most I admit Reasonable is both a legal term used in legislation and a term that appears in gun debates at a disproportionate ratio.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    Once again: this observation is inapposite.