5 ms·
If think you're following some revisionist history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magazine_(firearms) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magazine_(firearms). Magazin
by 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 agoThere'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 agoGun 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 agoNo, 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.
- oooyay 2y agoYeap that's fair and truthy.
- kasey_junk 2y agoI think this is the weakest part of your argument about assault weapons bans fwiw. It’s pretty clear statistically that handguns are in fact much much more dangerous than assault weapons. But you don’t need to prove that to be anti-assault weapon but it feels very weird to look at the stats around these things and conclude that’s where the focus should be. I think the focus is on assault weapons because handguns are off limits. The populace wants them and the courts are pretty clear on them.
- tptacek 2y agoI think if you're aiming to prevent the most deaths, you focus on car accidents. If you're aiming to prevent the most firearm-related deaths, you focus on handguns. If you're aiming to prevent mass shootings, assault weapons are very relevant. You can ask "why prevent mass shootings, when ordinary shootings kill more people", and of course someone else can say "why focus on shootings at all when cars kill more people".
- kasey_junk 2y agoHandguns are used in more mass shootings than assault weapons as well.