My current opinion on the issue of RKBA

[Half-Century Man]

We have been looking at the issue of mass shootings as though a single action can bring about an end to the ever raising death toll. If we were to give up all the guns, all would be better. If we all get a mental health evaluation, we could protect ourselves. If there were some magic infallible background check system in place, nobody get hurt. The truth is, we will have to accept that the combination of several factors have lead to the dramatic increase of mass violence in the last 20 years. Addressing only one of them is doomed to fail.
The argument that the proliferation of firearms is the reason for mass shootings, doesn’t take into account the many years we had a huge number of gun with far less violence. The estimate of 200-300 million guns in private hands has been around since the 1970s. Granted, there has been a continual trade off of older firearms for newer frequently military style rifles, the infamous “assault weapon”. The often used and more frequently blamed, tool of the mass shooter.
The second amendment clearly recognizes the right of the average citizen to have possession of guns. It was included as a non-governmental “check and balance”; the weapon of last resort to preserve the liberty of the people. That having been said, the authors of the Bill of Rights would never have guessed the technology we use today to kill each other. Therefore let’s start with uncontrolled ownership of what they knew, and add restrictions as technology advances. Muzzle loading weapons with outside ignition sources (Flint lock and percussion cap) are unrestricted. Manually cycled, sealed cartridge weapons (pump action, lever action, bolt action, single action pistols) are at a basic level of restriction. Semiautomatic pre 1965 weapons (designs) are restricted at a medium level. Semiautomatic post 1965 weapons (designs), with magazine feeds holding 20 rounds or less, are restricted at a yet higher level. Magazine fed military style weapons are at a significantly higher level of control. Curio and relics, or Class 3 permits remain the same. Restrictions and controls should include who owns what; the storage of weapons and ammo; who has access to weapons at a particular location; etc.
Another necessary step to reign in mass shootings is universal background checks. One which covers at least criminal and mental health concerns. We need a system to “tag” a person and their social security number so a hold would be placed on permission to own particular weapons. Not necessarily to halt the purchase, but to require further explanation before the sale. Tag arrests, strange encounters with law enforcement personal, doctors and councilors concerns, and whatever else is deemed relevant for further investigation. By keeping the ownership of weapons available for the first 80 something years of the Bill of Rights open to all, we comply with the Constitution as written. By deciding that greater restrictions are needed with increased levels of lethality is the Constitution as a living document. Exactly as the founders intended.
One side note, if we truly want a competent mental health evaluation that could be referenced for a background check. We need a national mental health initiative; possibly part of a national health care initiative. So in order to comply with the second amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, the United States might have to meet the standard of healthcare of every other single developed nation and most of the developing ones.
There is a strong argument as to cause of the rise in mass shooting in the last thirty years; the rise in separatist groups; the rise in religious fundamentalism; the hardening of our collective hearts. It is the despair, the utter feeling of hopelessness; the general population has confronting our world made by the unrestricted rabid capitalism.
The last 6 years or so have seen the rise of the alternative media on the web eclipsing the corporate media. The citizen reporter, whistleblowers, cell phone cameras, out of country media, and non-corporate media have all gained the creditability and experience to show the population exactly how badly we have been treated. Where there was the suspicion of being exploited before, there is now a verified path of betrayal through the exploiters. And the sense of powerlessness against such juggernauts is overwhelming. However, humans have survival mechanisms in our psyches. We will try to establish some form of control, some feeling of self determination, in our lives. Even if that desperate assertion of self costs our lives; even if it causes us to take the lives of others.
Guns are merely the preferred tools. Background checks are merely the path to those tools. They are symptoms. The motive, inspiration, the élan of the mass shooting is where the cure must be applied. So far, the shooters apparently have been our most fragile personalities. This will not always be so. Stronger people will break and take action. The powers that be will react; the next level of strong persons will react. And we will have a bloody revolution on our hands. There are 218.5 million adult (20 and over) in the United States, one percent of that is 2.2 million people (probably less than that). They cannot possible win, but that survival mechanism will kick in and they will lash out with deadly violence. A full blown new American revolution will be catastrophic to our population, economy, and sense of self as a nation.
In order to provide security to ourselves, to prevent mass shootings (of the individual kind and the potential group shooters), to preserve traditions and futures; we need a multiple faceted approach to the issue of firearms in private hands. We must react to the symptoms but treat the disease.


Half Century Man

[Dr Hobbitstein]

1. What is the difference between

semi-autos made prior to 1965 and those made after? I was under the impression that the semi-auto design goes back to 1885, with the most modern variants (AR-15, AK47, et al) made from the 40s-50s.

[Half-Century Man]

9. Ar-15 was designed by Eugene Stoner in the mid sixties. adopted by US military in 1969.

Mikhail Kalashnikov based the AK-47 (adopted by the Soviet Union in 1947)on the Sturmgewehr 44 (from Germany 1944). The Sturmgewehr 44 is considered the first assault rifle. I recently learned that Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher designed a semiautomatic rifle in 1885, which served primarily in central European militarilies. I had thought the Mauser C96 (broomhandle mauser pistol w/ dragoon stock) was the first widely commercially successful semi-auto.

I picked the mid sixties because of the transition period between wooden stocked and plastic stocked weapons, no other reason. I like guns and enjoy shooting immensely. I have fired hundreds of guns from muzzle loaders to submachine guns. In spite of my love of the sport, I do recognize the concerns connected to mass shootings. I want to keep the conversation going.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

18. Stoner designed it in 1957.

However, it was the wooden stock to plastic stock transition you were referring to. Thanks for clearing that up. I'm not much of a gun guy. I own a couple BB guns, but that's about it. I do, however, support the RKBA. It was just idle curiosity. Thanks!

[Half-Century Man]

20. I support the right to bear arms, and want to stop mass shootings.

Or at least contribute to a solution. Where safety and the second amendment are protected as best we can. And yeah, it's like urging both the Kama Sutra and chastity at once.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

25. Well, wanting to stop mass shootings

goes without saying (I would think)... However, with everything, YMMV.

[Half-Century Man]

26. Okay displaying my ignorence here..

YMMV...you're making me vomit???

I hope that is wrong.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

28. permit me...

~ your mileage may vary ~

[Dr Hobbitstein]

29. Your mileage may vary...

Lol. But that one is good, too!

[Half-Century Man]

30. Thank you both

[Jenoch]

2. There is at least one key flaw

in your restrictions based on technology. At the time the 2nd Amendment was written, there was in use a semi-auto rifle with a 20 round magazine.

[Half-Century Man]

5. There was a semi automatic rifle in 1776?

Cool, what was it so I can check it out.
I never ran into it studying the American Revolution or the Napoleonic wars. Closest thing I've heard of is the Volley gun, which was fairly rare and awkward to use.

[Jenoch]

11. Here is the Wikipedia entry on the gun to which I was referring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle

By the way, Stoner's first 'AR' designed rifle was the AR-10 (.308) in the mid 50s. The army went with the M14 instead.

[Half-Century Man]

13. Very cool gun, I wonder if a meusem in the US has one to look at.

I went with the Ar-15 because it was accepted. the AR 10 is a collector piece and most likely won't be available or cheap

[Jenoch]

14. AR-10s are currently being manufactured and sold.

I am sure the Girandoni used on the Lewis & Clark expedition is in a museum somewhere.

[Half-Century Man]

21. The original AR10s numbered less than 10,00 units

The modern AR10s are based on a later design. Either way, I would place then in the more modern category of semi-automatic weapons as per my OP.

And I gotta web search the Girandoni

[rrneck]

3. Extrajudicial "tagging" people is a bad idea.

It would be too easy for the authorities to come up with a pretext to "interact" with certain people or groups of people to facilitate sanctioned surveillance. Think stop and frisk in New York or OWS.

You can't exert state power over people for what the state thinks they might do.

[Half-Century Man]

6. They already do it. Think stop and frisk or driving while black.

I'm not giving anyone the power to fail someones background check. I'm suggesting a way to cause extra questions to be asked during a background check. It would have drawn attention to the Navel Yard Shooter, and might have prevented it.
Would not have stopped the shooter at Sandy Hook

[rrneck]

7. The fact that they already do it is not an excuse, it's an outrage.

And "extra questions" are regulatory overreach. The system is structured to require questions to be vetted by a judge, a precedent that stretches back to Magna Carta. The state doesn't have a right to ask any questions at all unless there is probable cause. Every oppressive regime in history has used regulatory abuse to curtail people's rights.

Tag arrests, strange encounters with law enforcement personal, doctors and councilors concerns, and whatever else is deemed relevant for further investigation.

The above sentence is the excuse that enabled some of the worst human rights abuses of the twentieth century.

The only people who have the right to ask extra questions are the people.

[Half-Century Man]

10. Are not the representatives of the people, the police?

At least they are suppose to be.
I just want a way to question potential gun buyers about their history as to predict with a bit of certainty their actions in the future.
I am open to suggestions, I think we all are.


My main focus isn't so much on the background checks themselves, but the underlaying cause of discontent/stress which motivates mass shootings

[rrneck]

15. No, they are not.

They are representatives of the law.

You cannot predict with any certainty the future actions of others with official inquiry, but you can control them with it. Unfortunately, the impossibility of meaningful limits of that inquiry cedes tremendous power to those with the power to ask unlimited questions.

If you are concerned with the underlying causes of mass shootings an effective social safety net, not police state surveillance, is the civilized method.

[Half-Century Man]

17. We already suffer the Police state and need to end it.

And the effective social safety net is just a step in ending the reign of rabid capitalism. I want us to put the controls back on the market. Capitalism should be a draft animal, a servant of civilization; not a skittish dangerous barely broken beast we are trying to ride.

That aside. How else do we deal with the issues of people devolving to the ragged edge, who have yet to drop off?

[rrneck]

22. Move the ragged edge so they don't drop. nt

[Half-Century Man]

23. To stand in the rye field and catch the ones falling off the ragged edge.

I am envious of your ability to cut to the root of the problem.

[rrneck]

24. Thanks! Now I want to read that book again. ntt

[Starboard Tack]

4. Very thoughtful OP. Somewhat of a rarity in the Gungeon

You might want to cross post it in GD and the other RKBA/reform group. Unfortunately, any suggestions that public safety should trump individual rights, rarely find any traction here. That said, it is a great place to hone your argument. Good luck.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. Good morning HCM and thanks so much for your thoughts

UBCs have become one of the most popular topics in RKBA discussions today. The 5th Amendment says:

"No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

It is universally accepted that "due process" is a day in court. Any restriction on what is accepted as a right without a day in court will be a non-starter. Having rights restricted because a cop saw you "do something strange" or a doctor "had concerns" but any issues weren't serious enough to warrant any action are deeply arbitrary and often serve to foster mechanisms that make the denial of rights subject and, possibly even, capricious. These decisions and their enforcement are often delegated to local or county level chief LEOs. This is generally the case now with title ii weapons under the NFA.

Of the most deadly recent shootings in DC, CT, CO and VA, all of those venues are among the states that comply best with mental health reporting to the FBI database used in the NICS process according to the MAIG report titled Fatal Gaps (page 12). Well, except for DC which is in the bottom half of that list. (BTW, anyone who believes that only 80 people in DC belong on that list is a bit naive.) But the Navy Yard shooter was previously from Texas and before that from New York which are also high on the list as frequent and diligent mental issue reporters.

"Magazine fed military style weapons are at a significantly higher level of control." The term "military style" has been much abused recently and, lacking any functional definition, this requirement comes down to grouping firearms into a class which you DON'T LIKE THE LOOK OF. This concept needs to go into the same non-starter pile since it is also just generally arbitrary. There are millions of untraceable higher capacity magazines in circulation today. Restricting new sales won't change anything very soon.

Cho, Holmes, Lanza and Alexis had mental problems in common. Expecting laws to work perfectly and screen out all the problem folks is unrealistic. We do need a national mental health initiative of some kind. That would be a great first step.

[Half-Century Man]

12. Good point.

How about, firearms capable of accepting detachable magazines holding 20 or more bottlenecked cartridges.


And I agree on the mental health issue. We need to destigmatize mental health and get everybody who needs help, help.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

16. Cool and thanks again for the reply

I often don't get answers. Sometimes it might be me.

I think it's a problem that in some instances mental health issues have consequences similar to felony crimes. I don't know the answer for that; I'm not sure there is one.

Limits on mags with more than 20 rounds might be acceptable to a lot of gun owners.
What's the issue with bottle-necked rounds?

[Half-Century Man]

19. Bottleneck shell casings allow more power behind smaller calibers.

One of the things which make high power rifles, high power.
An assault rifle, as a genre, was built to engage targets at ranges out to 300 meters. Modern military rifles use bottlenecks.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

27. The ballistic energy of the round...

...is not a primary issue in the lethality of the weapon. A .30-06 round has double the energy of a .30 carbine but the carbine can kill quite effectively. The principle difference would be the distance at which these rounds remain effective.

The defining difference between a standard battle rifle of the day, such as the M-1 Garand, and an assault rifle, such as the AK-47, is the rate of fire. Since full autos aren't the topic and range beyond across the street usually isn't a factor, I still don't really see the casing design playing a role in crime or accident reduction.

Most firearm assaults/murders are committed with handguns. Cho used handguns. Alexis bought a shotgun and then stole a handgun from a cop that he shot. I believe Lanza would have used whatever he could steal from his family.

The fact that most of these shooters had jobs (or daily relationships like school) and/or family mostly convinces me that we have a national apathy problem. That together with huge holes in the medical/mental health system makes the this a game of trying to nail jello to the wall.

[Half-Century Man]

31. Try freezing the jello around the nail.

I'm just looking for a demarcation to separate guns into groups based on rate of fire and volume of fire. Just as weapons outlawed for regular ownership with the Firearms Act of 1934 are available to holders of a federal class 3 license.
I'm putting out the argument that high volume/rate firearms deserve a higher standard. I want to link storage (weapon and magazine), transportation, and access limits to ownership. Based on the Sandy Hook incident, if the weapons had been locked separately from the ammo, and in a high security vault with out a physical access tool (ie a combination lock). Maybe Sandy Hook would not have happened. Or, without the AR-15 and 30 rnd mags, the damage could have been lessened.

[blueridge3210]

32. Hardware versus societal attitude

We addressed the issue of DUI more effectively by changing society's attitude about driving drunk and increased education and enforcement. Had we focused on such issues as alcohol concentration in drinks, mag wheels and spoilers we would not have had the success we achieved. As has been previously noted in other discussions; better enforcement of existing laws (use of a weapon as a sentence enhancement not a separate charge to be run concurrent with other charges) would do more than adding more laws that are not effectively enforced. Just my 2 cents.

[Half-Century Man]

34. Happy for the 2 cents.

My original point was the in order to curb mass shootings a multi-faceted approach was needed. One of the ways we might address the problem was to develop further controls of weapons with enhanced lethality.
I don't think this is a distraction. The way I think this will help is, by making firearms restrictions increase with the inherent lethality, we change the attitude to increased responsibility. If we can frame the ownership from a right into a responsibility, if we can shift, educate, people that with the right of citizenship, comes the responsibility when exercising that particular right.

[gejohnston]

35. you are making the mistake big city mayors make

that is scapegoating people who have nothing to do with the problem. That pisses people off, hence the popular Spartan motto. Chicago politicians, who use and coddle the gangs, but blame some guy in Wyoming for Chicago's gang violence is exactly that.

My original point was the in order to curb mass shootings a multi-faceted approach was needed. One of the ways we might address the problem was to develop further controls of weapons with enhanced lethality.

You curb it by prevention. Australia had a few mass shootings before Port Author. They had no mass murders before 1984 and the last mass shooting was Port Author. Two of those mass shootings were casualties in gang warefare. Even then, Australia had stricter gun laws. Australia had two mass murders since then, both arsons. How many were in the 1950s? The guns were just as lethal and a lot easier to get.

I don't think this is a distraction. The way I think this will help is, by making firearms restrictions increase with the inherent lethality, we change the attitude to increased responsibility. If we can frame the ownership from a right into a responsibility, if we can shift, educate, people that with the right of citizenship, comes the responsibility when exercising that particular right.

Guns are not inherently more lethal than they were in the 1920s. From "right to responsibility" makes it sound like the target shooter going off the deep end. None of these guys recently were "gun nuts" or members of the NRA. They were not even gun owners until just before the crime.

It is a distraction because it does not deal with the real issue.

[Half-Century Man]

36. I didn't realize I was blaming anyone for anything.

And is not restricted ownership a form of prevention? we can't reverse time so what has been is permanent. We can work to improve things in the future. I am just suggesting one possible way, or refine the idea using whatever inspiration you can from the original idea.
And while you cannot be rendered more dead now than in the 1920s, the increased amount of weapons with increased carrying capacity with increased ranges is a topic deserving of some attention.

[gejohnston]

37. no,

because there is no evidence that restricting ownership has prevented anything anywhere in the world. Murder rates did not drop. Use of guns in suicides did, but not suicides. If there is not an example of gun laws preventing murders, then there is a problem. The best gun control advocates have are laws passed in Europe in the 1920s because of the red scare and forgetting what post hoc ergo propter hoc means. UK's gun laws are not why UK has a lower murder rate than we do. They had a lower murder rate when they didn't have any at all. Canada's was just as low when their laws were on balance as "lax" as ours if not laxer. It rises and lowers with ours, but staying 1/4th ours on a national average. Gun laws don't explain why Manitoba has about the same murder rate as Minnesota. Nor does it explain why USVI is worse than Mexico and Jamaica while Wyoming (highest gun ownership rate in the US) and Vermont are on par with Europe.
Not only is it a distraction, it is also overly simplistic.
Actually, an AR has less range and power than Grandma's deer rifle. One of the lessons of Afghanistan is that the Taliban using vintage bolt actions chambered the more powerful .303, that the Brits used from the first World War until the 1950s, kill US and our allies while staying out of range of American M-16s and German G-36s.

[Half-Century Man]

38. All right I'll coincide the point on restrictions

I'm keeping me point about educating people about the combination of rights exercised and responsibilities accepted.

Personally speaking, I prefer an FN FAL in .308, but will settle with an M1A1 in .30-06.

[gejohnston]

39. I'll go with that, but I'll keep my

lever action .30-30 or .308 Ruger Scout. Some say I was born in the wrong century.

[Half-Century Man]

40. I don't mind the extra weight

Because I love the feel of either of those two.
Pulled my best grouping ever with an FAL, 16 out of 20 in an area of 4 inches at 750 meters with iron sights (and a good spotter).

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

33. AR-15/30 round mags...

The same has been done with handguns, Cho.