Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware • Hacker News Board

Re: Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

#251

Post by corresation » Wed, May 08, 2013, 8:47 PM UTC

mindcrime wrote: post #241

corresation wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no real definition of what an "assault weapon" is, and few restrict that to only automatic weapon. I would say that an AR-15 is most certainly an assault weapon. It is a high power weapon (ignore the rather ignorant people who fail to understand the difference between a .22 and a .223) designed and built for military purposes. Being automatic fire or not has remarkable little relevance to its deadliness.

There is no real definition of what an "assault weapon" is, and few restrict that to only automatic weapon. Right, because "assault weapon" is a made up term, created by the people at the Brady Campaign and other radical anti-gun groups, to promote their fear-mongering approach to advocating for more gun control. An "assault rifle" OTOH, does have a technical definition, and it does involve a full-auto or select-fire…

Calling it an "assault weapon" makes as much sense as calling it a "gandering gillifrous".

It's purely coincidental that it is a weapon enamoured and used by so many spree killers. Purely coincidental. It's a high capacity, fast-action semi-automatic (not all semi-automatics are created equal, and the AR15 allows a practitioner to achieve automatic-rate fire) that is military built to empty clips effortlessly. Totally the same as a hunting rifle.

Meh. A .223 is still a relatively low-powered round in the grand scheme of things.

And then you point out a MASSIVE bullet used by almost no one but in bolt action rifles. A bullet that is essentially never used in the commission of murders.

Yes, and that bullet is relatively low-powered compared to a 120mm M1 KE round. Which is completely meaningless patter.

Re: Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

#252

Post by hga » Wed, May 08, 2013, 8:54 PM UTC

MrMember wrote: post #228

mindcrime wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of gun collecting is predominantly around modern, mass-produced, non-scarce guns. Absolutely. Plenty of gun-owners are just flat-out "gearheads" in the same sense as guitar players (who often own dozens of guitars and amps) or whatever. If I had money to burn, I personally would own a few dozen guns, and most of my collection would fall into the "modern, mass produced, non-scarce" category. The exceptions woul…

My "to buy" list looks very similar. Mostly modern firearms that serve a functional purpose with a few 'fun' guns (like an M1 Garand and Five-seveN) thrown in for either their historical value or 'cool factor.'

If you're in an evil state, not counting NY, the Garand is an eminently practical weapon. Get it rebarreled in .308/7.62 NATO and the ammo is less expensive.

I have a friend in Illinois who's soon going to be moving back to Maryland, he's a WWII buff and has a M1911 (Argentine) and a beautiful Garand in .308 and he doesn't have to worry about those or any other state's "assault weapons" bans, except again NY, where you're only allowed to load 7 rounds in your magazines....

Recharging it with its 8 rounds clips is quick, and in general it's one of the most ergonomic gun designs of the century, e.g. it has very little in the way of protrusions to catch.

Agreed on FN's 5.7mm stuff, though; fun, but with a round only about 10% more powerful than the hottest .22 rimfire magnum, not practical except in full auto, which thanks to the Hughes amendment means we can't own any. But, boy, would I like to own a PS90 ... just can't justify it.

Re: Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

#253

Post by hga » Wed, May 08, 2013, 8:56 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #216

fywacro wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point seems reasonable & logical. But in my experience, it's also incorrect: Plenty of gun collecting is predominantly around modern, mass-produced, non-scarce guns. I believe it's because scarcity is not a significant driver of value, in most gun owners' minds. Gun collectors derive a large portion of their guns' value from using (firing) them in a sports setting. Contrast with art or stamps, which don't really…

We should just find some statistics. For instance, this article pegs the number of AR 15s in the United States in the low millions: http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/20/assault_rifle_st... It makes a credible case for less than 5 million. So you only need 20 or 30 similarly collectible guns to get to 100 million. We also should not bother to argue too much over what constitutes collecting (that is, we should f…

As I note elsewhere, also run the numbers on how much gun owners have invested in firearms. If, as one person did using the latest figures including the clearly too low ownership rate from surveys, the average is $100K then....

Re: Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

#254

Post by mindcrime » Wed, May 08, 2013, 9:13 PM UTC

corresation wrote: post #251

mindcrime wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no real definition of what an "assault weapon" is, and few restrict that to only automatic weapon. Right, because "assault weapon" is a made up term, created by the people at the Brady Campaign and other radical anti-gun groups, to promote their fear-mongering approach to advocating for more gun control. An "assault rifle" OTOH, does have a technical definition, and it does involve a full-auto or select-fire…

Calling it an "assault weapon" makes as much sense as calling it a "gandering gillifrous". It's purely coincidental that it is a weapon enamoured and used by so many spree killers. Purely coincidental. It's a high capacity, fast-action semi-automatic (not all semi-automatics are created equal, and the AR15 allows a practitioner to achieve automatic-rate fire) that is military built to empty clips effortlessly. Totall…

It's purely coincidental that it is a weapon enamoured and used by so many spree killers.

May be. Spree killings are actually fairly uncommon, so trying to draw any inferences from such a small data set is fraught with risk.

Totally the same as a hunting rifle.

Nobody said it was. But I, and many others, refute any assertion that an AR-15 is especially deadly compared to many (most) other commonly available civilian semiautomatic rifles.

And then you point out a MASSIVE bullet used by almost no one but in bolt action rifles. A bullet that is essentially never used in the commission of murders.

The point is that .223 is not an especially lethal round. Bringing up something like a 120mm mortar round is silly... 30-06 is a commonly used, generic-as-can-be round, which sits in boxes and boxes in stores and houses all around the USA. And it is a more "lethal" round than .223, but the anti-gun fringe jump all over .223 and the AR-15 to evoke an emotional reaction. It's pure fear-mongering and appeal to emotion.

After all, it's not just a "gun" it's "a high power, fast-action, semi-automatic assault weapon"! Which one sounds scarier and is more likely to get people all riled up? FSM forbid that the thing might even have one of those evil pistol grips or a bayonet lug, or even gasp be black...

Re: Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

#255

Post by corresation » Wed, May 08, 2013, 9:23 PM UTC

Terretta wrote: post #218

granitepail wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also worth noting that while blunt objects such as hammers and baseball bats find uses in construction and non-violent sports, guns do not necessarily share such innocent use cases. Sport shooting is the major exemption (I'm quite a fan, myself) but at the end of the day guns are designed to put holes (some messier than others) in objects very far away. When a gun is pointed at a living organism and the trigger…

Fantastic point. Considering the rifle's primary purpose, and the number of them out there, it certainly suggests the typical rifle owner must be pretty responsible. Compare to the 200 kiddie pool deaths every summer, which have the unfortunate side effect of almost exclusively killing kids despite mostly non lethal purposes, and rifle owners start to seem extraordinarily more responsible than kiddie pool owners. At…

Compare to the 200 kiddie pool deaths every summer

You have a very loose handle on facts. There are about 20 "kiddie pool" deaths in the United States in an average year. There are many more swimming pool accidents, which is exactly why there are endless regulations and safety actions around swimming pools, and it remains a serious tragedy that absolutely needs action. It is completely and outrageously unacceptable that children continue to die tragic deaths in swimming pools, and whether it's increased safety measures, or more education starting at a younger age, it is untenable and at some point in the future people will look back and marvel at the stupid risk taking that occurred.

Of course it's a garbage analogy anyways. Swimming pools provide recreation and physical activity for tens of millions of people. Guns generally sit in closets until that day it's used to commit a suicide, a robbery, a murder, etc.

Re: Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

#256

Post by corresation » Wed, May 08, 2013, 9:30 PM UTC

mindcrime wrote: post #254

corresation wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling it an "assault weapon" makes as much sense as calling it a "gandering gillifrous". It's purely coincidental that it is a weapon enamoured and used by so many spree killers. Purely coincidental. It's a high capacity, fast-action semi-automatic (not all semi-automatics are created equal, and the AR15 allows a practitioner to achieve automatic-rate fire) that is military built to empty clips effortlessly. Totall…

It's purely coincidental that it is a weapon enamoured and used by so many spree killers. May be. Spree killings are actually fairly uncommon, so trying to draw any inferences from such a small data set is fraught with risk. Totally the same as a hunting rifle. Nobody said it was. But I, and many others, refute any assertion that an AR-15 is especially deadly compared to many (most) other commonly available civilian…

The .223/5.56/variations is the round of choice for military units around the world. For killing/maiming people.

It's powerful (dramatically more powerful than a .22), relatively light, and can be loaded in high capacity magazines.

When the military chooses it as the round of choice for killing people, it's pretty nonsensical to try to hold it as some sort of weakling.

Re: Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

#257

Post by mindcrime » Wed, May 08, 2013, 9:54 PM UTC

corresation wrote: post #256

mindcrime wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's purely coincidental that it is a weapon enamoured and used by so many spree killers. May be. Spree killings are actually fairly uncommon, so trying to draw any inferences from such a small data set is fraught with risk. Totally the same as a hunting rifle. Nobody said it was. But I, and many others, refute any assertion that an AR-15 is especially deadly compared to many (most) other commonly available civilian…

The .223/5.56/variations is the round of choice for military units around the world. For killing/maiming people . It's powerful (dramatically more powerful than a .22), relatively light, and can be loaded in high capacity magazines. When the military chooses it as the round of choice for killing people, it's pretty nonsensical to try to hold it as some sort of weakling.

The .223/5.56/variations is the round of choice for military units around the world. For killing/maiming people.

It's powerful (dramatically more powerful than a .22), relatively light, and can be loaded in high capacity magazines.

Just to be clear... I'm not saying that you can't kill somebody with a firearm chambered for .223. Of course it's potentially lethal. Pretty much all firearm rounds are potentially lethal, even something like .22 Short rounds.

What I'm saying, is that the .223 is not particularly more dangerous than other common rounds, to the point that there's any reason to single it out for special attention. And the fact that military forces choose it doesn't dispute that. There are a LOT of reasons why military forces make the choices they do, and they're as likely to be economic forces as purely strategic ones.

When the military chooses it as the round of choice for killing people, it's pretty nonsensical to try to hold it as some sort of weakling.

If sheer lethal effectiveness were the only criteria used to select a round, .223 would not be the first choice for killing a human being.

Of course you can make any point with relative comparisons. Compared to a bb and a slingshot, .223 is deadly-as-fuck. But compared to many other rounds that you can commonly find firearms chambered for, it's average at best.

Re: Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

#258

Post by coldtea » Wed, May 08, 2013, 10:12 PM UTC

beeffective wrote: post #201

coldtea wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Except that's not what was actually happening. Most of what was hotly debated over the last few months has been over an "Assault Weapons Ban", that is a ban on certain semi-automatic rifles, very rarely involved in crime. That's because they knew that the nuts in NRA and other pro-gun lobbies would never in a 1000 years accept a total "gun control" law. So they scaled down their proposal. Plus you also have this BS…

Most people who are anti-gun, such as yourself due to your "BS amendment" comment, are usually very ignorant or fearful of guns. As a very middle of the road type of guy, I joined NRA and 2nd Amendment Foundation for the first time a few months ago because of too many people like you who are too easily influenced by the media in the past 6 months.

>Most people who are anti-gun, such as yourself due to your "BS amendment" comment, are usually very ignorant or fearful of guns.

I actually went through a compulsory one year long army training (and got to be a sergeant) but nice try anyway.

>As a very middle of the road type of guy, I joined NRA and 2nd Amendment Foundation for the first time a few months ago because of too many people like you who are too easily influenced by the media in the past 6 months.

I'm from another country, I don't even read your media that much.

I just feel that selling guns to anybody in a society with so many wackos (with the highest gun crime rates in the western world, the highest incarceration rate in the world, and the highest number of nutjob serial killers) is wrong.

And I'm also against the "protecting my private property means I have the right to kill any trespasser" cowboy logic.

I prefer to be robbed and let the police handle it, than kill people.

Re: Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

#259

Post by coldtea » Wed, May 08, 2013, 10:13 PM UTC

mh- wrote: post #189

coldtea wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Except that's not what was actually happening. Most of what was hotly debated over the last few months has been over an "Assault Weapons Ban", that is a ban on certain semi-automatic rifles, very rarely involved in crime. That's because they knew that the nuts in NRA and other pro-gun lobbies would never in a 1000 years accept a total "gun control" law. So they scaled down their proposal. Plus you also have this BS…

>I wonder what would have happened if some part of the constitution called for the "right to own slaves". I suspect it would have been amended when the states agreed to ratify such a proposal.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_Uni...

Nice. Not an American, so not familiar with this case.

Which reinforces my point: no damn reason to keep the constitution, the founding fathers and 200 year old amendments as "holy scripture". You can fuck "the right to bear arms" and change the laws.

Re: Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

#260

Post by learc83 » Wed, May 08, 2013, 10:42 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #259

mh- wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I wonder what would have happened if some part of the constitution called for the "right to own slaves". I suspect it would have been amended when the states agreed to ratify such a proposal.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_Uni...

Nice. Not an American, so not familiar with this case. Which reinforces my point: no damn reason to keep the constitution, the founding fathers and 200 year old amendments as "holy scripture". You can fuck "the right to bear arms" and change the laws.

>You can fuck "the right to bear arms" and change the laws.

You could, via constitutional amendment. There are 2 methods to do this, a constitutional convention (hasn't happened yet). Or the amendment can pass both houses with a 2/3 vote, and then be ratified by 3/4 of the states.

This is the legal procedure for changing the constitution. However, the anti-gun control crowd doesn't have anywhere near the support for this.

Ignoring the constitution and confiscating all guns via dictatorial fiat would result in civil war/mass uprisings that would kill far more people than currently killed via firearm.