{"items": [{"author": "Andrew", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793362992082", "anchor": "fb-793362992082", "service": "fb", "text": "If policy people spent as much time figuring out liability for self driving cars as they do on which rifles to ban, the US could switch faster and save 50-100 times as many lives per year.", "timestamp": "1466023247"}, {"author": "Ron", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793362992082&reply_comment_id=793379568862", "anchor": "fb-793362992082_793379568862", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Cite your statistic.
Mine tells me the number of gun and car crash fatalities in the US are nearly equal.
I only wish cars and guns required the same licensing, registration, insurance and statistical analysis.", "timestamp": "1466024110"}, {"author": "Ron", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793362992082&reply_comment_id=793380277442", "anchor": "fb-793362992082_793380277442", "service": "fb", "text": "→ And safety features. Can you imagine if an automaker sold a car with no lock for its use, that required no key? They'd be sued the first time someone stole a car and ran over some people, and the carmaker would lose.
Funny how gun manufacturers are the only industry with a special immunity to civil suits like that.", "timestamp": "1466024163"}, {"author": "Andrew", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793362992082&reply_comment_id=793382927132", "anchor": "fb-793362992082_793382927132", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I said rifles, not guns. Rifles account for between 358 and 2298 deaths (https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Gun_violence_in_the_United...) per year while automotive deaths are in the neigborhood of 30k", "timestamp": "1466024399"}, {"author": "Paul", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793362992082&reply_comment_id=793383985012", "anchor": "fb-793362992082_793383985012", "service": "fb", "text": "→ This is pretty recent http://www.motherjones.com/.../gun-violence-car-deaths...", "timestamp": "1466024493"}, {"author": "Ron", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793362992082&reply_comment_id=793386160652", "anchor": "fb-793362992082_793386160652", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Andrew, I think you understand my bigger point. It's not that people think about rifles alone, they think about it along with all sorts of other gun regulations.
All of which the NRA blocks.", "timestamp": "1466024680"}, {"author": "Andrew", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793362992082&reply_comment_id=793389094772", "anchor": "fb-793362992082_793389094772", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Jeff's original post was about regulations around rifles, that was the context I was talking about.", "timestamp": "1466024957"}, {"author": "Dvor\u00e1", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793362992082&reply_comment_id=793401599712", "anchor": "fb-793362992082_793401599712", "service": "fb", "text": "→ FBI's latest on types of weapons used in murders:
https://www.fbi.gov/.../expanded_homicide_data_table_8...", "timestamp": "1466026018"}, {"author": "Dvor\u00e1", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793362992082&reply_comment_id=793401614682", "anchor": "fb-793362992082_793401614682", "service": "fb", "text": "→ CDC's latest on causes of death:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf", "timestamp": "1466026040"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "→ this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1466026846"}, {"author": "Ron", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793362992082&reply_comment_id=793452457792", "anchor": "fb-793362992082_793452457792", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Elliot, I think you're being a bit pedantic.
Of course they wouldn't be exactly the same, as your airbag example shows.
Don't ignore the forest for the trees.", "timestamp": "1466028429"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793362992082&reply_comment_id=793454199302", "anchor": "fb-793362992082_793454199302", "service": "fb", "text": "→ @Ron: to put it another way, I wouldn't trade current car rules for current gun rules.", "timestamp": "1466029207"}, {"author": "Ron", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793362992082&reply_comment_id=793454408882", "anchor": "fb-793362992082_793454408882", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Yes, but that's pedantry.
Things are not exactly the same. But there are tons of regulations we do for cars that are baffling why we don't do for guns.", "timestamp": "1466029369"}, {"author": "Andrew", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793362992082&reply_comment_id=793454618462", "anchor": "fb-793362992082_793454618462", "service": "fb", "text": "→ It's not pedantry to say your analogy doesn't hold.", "timestamp": "1466029534"}, {"author": "Ron", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793362992082&reply_comment_id=793455601492", "anchor": "fb-793362992082_793455601492", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Analogy is not the same as congruency.", "timestamp": "1466030307"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "→ this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1466032683"}, {"author": "Ron", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793362992082&reply_comment_id=793462622422", "anchor": "fb-793362992082_793462622422", "service": "fb", "text": "→ You're being too literal.", "timestamp": "1466033321"}, {"author": "Bear", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793362992082&reply_comment_id=793610750572", "anchor": "fb-793362992082_793610750572", "service": "fb", "text": "→ You should find a new analogy.", "timestamp": "1466056710"}, {"author": "Brock", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793362992082&reply_comment_id=793773733952", "anchor": "fb-793362992082_793773733952", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I'll take a few more rules in exchange for a license honored in all 50 states and Puerto Rico, please!", "timestamp": "1466080640"}, {"author": "Jonah", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793378301402", "anchor": "fb-793378301402", "service": "fb", "text": "Thanks, I definitely need Guns for Dummies as well. Is your statement that banning semi-automatic weapons will not reduce overall gun deaths that much to be taken as a reason not to ban them? Or to mean that while preventing mass shootings is good, it doesn't nearly tackle the whole issue? Or something else, or you're still figuring it out yourself? Congrats, you're now the gun expert in my life.", "timestamp": "1466023979"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793378301402&reply_comment_id=793388146672", "anchor": "fb-793378301402_793388146672", "service": "fb", "text": "→ From what I'm reading, restricting semi-automatics wouldn't do that much because you can make pumped guns that still let you fire very quickly. A law that explicitly limited the rate of fire could work. And maybe one that limited the speed of changing magazines?
The thing I like about limiting magazine size is you could do it universally, while banning certain categories of gun put you up against a lot of people who are quite attached to theirs.", "timestamp": "1466024871"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793378301402&reply_comment_id=793452607492", "anchor": "fb-793378301402_793452607492", "service": "fb", "text": "→ (if there were many mass shootings where people had modified a semi automatic to shoot fully automatic, and this was increasing fatalities, then I would be more in favor of restricting semis as a category.)", "timestamp": "1466028472"}, {"author": "Howie", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793378301402&reply_comment_id=793453590522", "anchor": "fb-793378301402_793453590522", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I'd add that banning all semiautomatics would be particularly political contentious because it includes a pretty high proportion of guns that don't look particularly scary and that are the types of guns you'd want for self defense if you're someone who believes owning a gun makes you safer.
If we accept that we don't have a consensus in this country against owning guns for self defense, I think it's pretty hard to argue that people shouldn't be allowed to own a semi-automatic handgun that lets them pull the trigger a few times in a row without reloading.", "timestamp": "1466028931"}, {"author": "Kent", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793378301402&reply_comment_id=793457053582", "anchor": "fb-793378301402_793457053582", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Virtually any gun sold in the last 100 years is a \"semi-automatic\".
And writing laws that specifically target categories and features is just an invitation to clever manufacturerers to create new models that are technically compliant.", "timestamp": "1466031047"}, {"author": "Davis", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793378301402&reply_comment_id=793507916652", "anchor": "fb-793378301402_793507916652", "service": "fb", "text": "→ One note is that fully automatic fire is not very practical in a handheld rifle-caliber weapon, and is mostly only used on larger, heavier machine guns with better systems to absorb recoil or on handheld submachine guns firing smaller bullets - even military rifles that *can* be set to full-auto are primarily used in the semi-automatic firing mode.
Banning fully automatic weapons for civilians doesn't really mean much in terms of rifles, but it does prevent civilians from owning machine guns or submachine guns, the latter of which were very popular with criminals prior to the ban - the infamous \"Tommy gun\" being probably the best example.", "timestamp": "1466045873"}, {"author": "Brock", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793378301402&reply_comment_id=793773015392", "anchor": "fb-793378301402_793773015392", "service": "fb", "text": "→ You can still buy machine guns, but they have to be made pre-ban so the prices are quite high, and you have to pay a $200 tax every time you buy one.", "timestamp": "1466080027"}, {"author": "Susan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793385626722", "anchor": "fb-793385626722", "service": "fb", "text": "Helps keep discussions from getting derailed about pedantry about why a gun doesn't \"count\" as an assault weapon, machine gun, etc.", "timestamp": "1466024631"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "→ this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1466026517"}, {"author": "Ron", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793385626722&reply_comment_id=793453435832", "anchor": "fb-793385626722_793453435832", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Elliot, Susan JUST asked you not to be pedantic here.
I think it is pretty frigging scary that an AR-15 can waste through 49 people rapidly. There's no need for any new label for that gun to sound scary.", "timestamp": "1466028736"}, {"author": "Andrew", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793387333302", "anchor": "fb-793387333302", "service": "fb", "text": "Something like 95% of homicides with firearms are from handguns, as opposed to rifles. Using the total homicides from firearms as a reason to talk about legislation around rifles is going to result in bad policy.", "timestamp": "1466024776"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793387333302&reply_comment_id=793394633672", "anchor": "fb-793387333302_793394633672", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Does this belong on your subthread above?", "timestamp": "1466025396"}, {"author": "Andrew", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793387333302&reply_comment_id=793398925072", "anchor": "fb-793387333302_793398925072", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I intended to put this in the main thread, but if you think it's redundant or belongs in the subthread I can delete it.", "timestamp": "1466025802"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793387333302&reply_comment_id=793401973962", "anchor": "fb-793387333302_793401973962", "service": "fb", "text": "→ No, that's fine!", "timestamp": "1466026310"}, {"author": "Howie", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793435302172", "anchor": "fb-793435302172", "service": "fb", "text": "Really glad you're doing this. I think a major problem with the gun control debate is that some liberal gun control advocates make broad claims that reveal that they don't actually know much about guns.
This contributes to the perception among gun owners that gun control is really about liberal, coastal, elites trying to regulate their lives without bothering to understand them first.
I think it's worth noting that some real scary guns would not be considered assault weapons (e.g. a semi-automatic with a pistol grip and a large magazine is already pretty scary). Also worth noting that, to the extent anybody is going to have a gun for self-defense, it seems reasonable that they'd want a semi-automatic one.", "timestamp": "1466028109"}, {"author": "Mac", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793455162372", "anchor": "fb-793455162372", "service": "fb", "text": "Comments that I've read in other such discussions suggest that the capacity of the magazine doesn't matter all that much as they can be switched out fairly quickly.
I too have little to no experience with guns and appreciate your posting about your reading.
Generally I would like if there were significantly fewer of them in the world, but given that it is now possible to 3d print the lower receiver of an AR-15, I'm having a tough time seeing how any restrictions will have long term viability.", "timestamp": "1466029958"}, {"author": "Daniel", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106627634005073412802", "anchor": "gp-1466032410828", "service": "gp", "text": "How easily could people get around bans on high capacity magazines with 3D printing? If this is not easily accomplished now, will it be soon?", "timestamp": 1466032410}, {"author": "Michael", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793468016612", "anchor": "fb-793468016612", "service": "fb", "text": "This line from your post is key:
\"On the other hand, mass shootings are a small fraction of gun homicides, though, so specifically limiting guns that are well suited for mass shooting might just reduce the fraction of gun deaths that are newsworthy without reducting overall deaths by very much.\"
Even if a ban on \"assault weapons\" or a reduction in magazine size did reduce the number of mass shootings, it would just be covering up the real problem, which is that there are just too many guns of all types to possibly regulate or keep safe. I don't see any way that real progress is made without tackling that problem.", "timestamp": "1466036386"}, {"author": "Lauren", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793468430782", "anchor": "fb-793468430782", "service": "fb", "text": "Ban all guns except \"assault rifles\"!", "timestamp": "1466036617"}, {"author": "Scott", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793497213102", "anchor": "fb-793497213102", "service": "fb", "text": "The phrase \"gun control\" has misled generations of people, in my opinion.
Imagine instead there are objects called Napoleons, and there are other objects called Washingtons. Both expel metal, but the similarities end there.
Napoleons are usually found in people's safes or mounted on their wall; sometimes they will be taken to the woods to Napoleon some animals, or to a Napoleoning range for practice. Very rarely, a person might use their Napoleon to Napoleon another person. When this happens it is generally considered to be a very good thing.
Washingtons are quite different. They are often found at the scene of suicides, where someone has Washingtoned themselves. With worrying regularity, there occur incidents of people Washingtoning each other, which is almost always considered a very bad thing. Very rarely, someone Washingtons a whole lot of people at once, which is extremely bad.
Most of the cases of one person Napoleoning another occur when the Napoleoned person had a Washington on him, or was trying to Washington a bunch of people.
A curious thing happens in the wake of these rare but upsetting Mass Washingtonians. There is a great clamour for stricter Napoleon control, making it harder to buy and own Napoleons. For some strange reason, it is physically impossible to invent or implement Washington control laws.
Nobody quite knows why this is, but elders speak of a time when we used the same word to describe the two very different objects.
Practical upshot: legal guns and illegal guns are two different things. There's no such thing as \"gun control\" there's only \"[legal gun] control\". Illegal guns are immune to all gun control laws, because of the nature of \"laws\" and \"illegal\".", "timestamp": "1466042794"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "→ this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1466050374"}, {"author": "Scott", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793497213102&reply_comment_id=793561509252", "anchor": "fb-793497213102_793561509252", "service": "fb", "text": "→ My point is that illegal guns do not obey gun control laws - they don't behave according to the prescriptions laid out in the law.
If you pass gun control banning anything above 8 rounds, the illegal guns continue on having more than 8 rounds (up until the weapon is destroyed or confiscated). But there are already enough grounds to take an illegal gun off of somebody.", "timestamp": "1466051290"}, {"author": "Richard", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793497213102&reply_comment_id=793562142982", "anchor": "fb-793497213102_793562142982", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Scott: Are you implying that changing the law regarding guns will have no effect on the actual availability of illegal guns?", "timestamp": "1466051784"}, {"author": "Scott", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793497213102&reply_comment_id=793564163932", "anchor": "fb-793497213102_793564163932", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Yes, changing the laws regarding guns - such as what permits are required, how many days you have to wait, which types of ammunition are allowed, etc, etc, will have next to no effect on the availability of illegal guns. Well, it might affect availability *slightly*, but presumably affecting their availability is a means to the end of \"reduced deaths\", and the change in availability will not affect that.
To corroborate that - the gun murder rate has spiked upwards significantly in some cities in the US, almost doubling in a single year, in some cases. It looks like about 400 extra people were murdered in 2015 and it's set to reach maybe 600 for 2016. (It's occurring because police are no longer doing 'proactive policing', as the risk of becoming the next famous-on-social-media racist cop is too high.) Illegal guns have not become much more or less available in these places; essentially there were more than enough guns to go around, and instead there were other factors keeping the murder rate down (one of which has been lifted, hence the uptick).
There potentially are laws that would affect the availability of illegal guns - but they would be laws that extend the police's power to search you and your belongings, not restrictions on guns.", "timestamp": "1466052914"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "→ this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1466054230"}, {"author": "Benjamin", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793497213102&reply_comment_id=793610835402", "anchor": "fb-793497213102_793610835402", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Saying the problem is illegal firearms and not legal firearms is disingenuous. Let us consider it point by point:
The guns used in the port athur massacre were legally purchased. The guns used in the Pulse nightclub massacre were legally purchased.The guns used in the Columbine school shooting were... legally purchased! The majority of guns used in crimes in the US are legally purchased. It's interesting that the average lag between guns being purchased and used in a crime is 10 years.. because what happens is they get resold on the completely unregulated secondary market and then end up in the hands of unsavory characters. They are pretty much untraceable, because secondary sales are not tracked/regulated in the US.
This is a clear failing of gun control.
However, let's assume you're talking about Australian gun crime post port author. Ignoring for a moment that the entire point of the post port arthur gun control regime is to make it tremendously difficult to legally obtain firearms, which means criminals have to use illegally obtained firearms, that are now very hard to come by (cutting off supply being the idea), the single largest source of 'illegal' firearms in Australia is gun components that were purchased from various states under their regulatory regime where specific parts of the gun were controlled.. but different states controlled different parts. So by ordering from a bunch of different states you could uncontrolled & unregulated buy all the components of an firearm, assemble it yourself and BAM uncontrolled & unregulated firearm.
It's pretty obvious that the source of issue there was poor gun control regulation, as it was entirely legal to buy all the parts (but not assemble it.. but lol)
Anyway, they've now fixed that, so the biggest source of 'illegal' guns is 'legal' gun shops diverting firearms outside of the control. Again, a clear failure of the regulatory regime. If your guns keep getting mysteriously stolen, maybe you should not be allowed to keep buying more guns??!?!
The evidence is incontrovertible, the source of firearms used in crime is leakage from weak gun control regimes. The solution is stronger gun control regimes and social programs to reduce crime.", "timestamp": "1466056793"}, {"author": "Adam", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793497213102&reply_comment_id=793672761302", "anchor": "fb-793497213102_793672761302", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Which rather implies that there is a form of gun control that would work: ie enforcing existing gun laws firmly. Raising sentences, putting more police on the street to investigate illegal guns, clamp down harder on maufacturers to control their distribution chain etc.", "timestamp": "1466065435"}, {"author": "Scott", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793497213102&reply_comment_id=793696109512", "anchor": "fb-793497213102_793696109512", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Legalise weed you'll never stop drug crime but we can ban and police guns out of existence
Yeah fuckin right
Peoples brains just turn off with regard to this shit
250 million guns exist in the US already. So the next 100 years will not be gun free, end of story, you cannot get around that. Given that you live in that world, what are you going to do?", "timestamp": "1466073272"}, {"author": "Adam", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793497213102&reply_comment_id=793806029232", "anchor": "fb-793497213102_793806029232", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Umm. I think you take my view as rather more extreme than it is. I agree. The law has finite power. \"Gun free\" is impossible, like drug free, like murder free.
The reason banning drugs is a bad idea is that the cost of enforcement is much higher than the benefit. It does however *reduce* the amount of drug use.
The reason banning murder is a good idea is that the cost of enforcement is much lower than the benefit. It does *reduce* the amount of murder.
We can *reduce* the amount of guns very very easily, we can ban we can tax we can police and enforce. It really does reduce use. The question is does this reduction cost more than the benefit.", "timestamp": "1466082815"}, {"author": "Scott", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793497213102&reply_comment_id=793906961962", "anchor": "fb-793497213102_793906961962", "service": "fb", "text": "→ The sheer unfairness. That the most well-behaved are the most affected and the worst-behaved are the least affected. And that tiny amount that the worst-behaved are affected - \"well I guess we just have to do it ten times over\" and now the most well-behaved are facing a tyrannical amount of regulation and red tape etc.
At least recognise that's what you're suggesting, at least recognise and admit that", "timestamp": "1466101430"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "→ this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1466102611"}, {"author": "Scott", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793497213102&reply_comment_id=793912775312", "anchor": "fb-793497213102_793912775312", "service": "fb", "text": "→ So, we are violently agreeing here. The biggest sufferers are undoubtedly the victims of shootings.
You hit upon what I was trying to convey when you said these awful things \"might not have happened had there been more barriers between the perpetrator and ... the weapon\".
Let's abstract away from specific policies and just say we can add 1 unit of barrier to the existing system by passing a gun control law.
The law-abiding gun owner is thus presented with 1 extra unit of resistance. The perpetrator, depending on how impulsive the act is, will look for a way around the barrier, and sometimes succeed. So the barrier only presents, let's say, 0.5 units of resistance to the perp. Immediately it is obvious to us that if we want to put up 1 unit of resistance against the perpetrator, that will involve subjecting the law-abiding gun owner to 2 units of resistance.
As long as you recognise that's the mechanism by which you are decreasing gun crime.", "timestamp": "1466104043"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793497213102&reply_comment_id=793915948952", "anchor": "fb-793497213102_793915948952", "service": "fb", "text": "→ @Scott: Your units model doesn't bother me that much. Yes, if you try to control who is allowed to have guns then restrictions fall more heavily on legal gun owners than on people who are willing to buy guns illegally. But:
* I'm ok with this to some extent.
* There are some kinds of equipment like large magazines that I think we should probably flat-out ban, including outlawing possession of ones that are currently legally owned.", "timestamp": "1466104725"}, {"author": "Scott", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793497213102&reply_comment_id=793917450942", "anchor": "fb-793497213102_793917450942", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Sure, so, that model is an insight into an average anti-gun-control mind. One obvious problem is the majority of gun control supporters (and definitely the majority of gun control law drafters) are not gun owners, and so have no particular reason except good will to not crank the dial up. The barriers aren't going to affect them, but the crimes prevented DO sometimes affect them, so they have an incentive to add more barriers whenever they're not comfortable with how safe they are currently from crime. They have little reason to try to ensure the conversion rate stays high, as well - if the conversion rate is only 0.2, oh well, slap on 5 units of barrier instead of 2. Doesn't cost me anything.
This is a really bad incentive structure! It's not surprising that gun owners would take one look at it and go \"hell no\".", "timestamp": "1466105418"}, {"author": "Adam", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793497213102&reply_comment_id=793936223322", "anchor": "fb-793497213102_793936223322", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Yes obviously. I admit 100% that the main impact here is to hurt people who wish to own guns legitimately. Also obvious is that most liberals are doing this in bad faith. Also obvious is that they have no idea what they're doing so the laws they draft are terrible.
I grant *all* of it. Costs are real. We endorse liberalism here, every law is an infringement upon liberty, every law is harm. Yes this is 100% about throwing rural folk under the bus.
I still think that you go too far in assuming a priori that these costs are more important than the reduction in illegitimate gun ownership. Sure, might be true. But armed criminals seem to me disproportionately more significant in the policy calculus than legitimate gun owners.", "timestamp": "1466111556"}, {"author": "Scott", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793497213102&reply_comment_id=793990584382", "anchor": "fb-793497213102_793990584382", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Alright, well, right back at you: rural folk don't have any gun violence problems. Nobody shoots up rural schools. There aren't any gangs doing drivebys out in the country. And the police are much farther away.
Why should rural folk care?", "timestamp": "1466134325"}, {"author": "Adam", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793497213102&reply_comment_id=794003448602", "anchor": "fb-793497213102_794003448602", "service": "fb", "text": "→ They shouldn't. If people insist on cutting along the current axis then one side has to gain at the expense of the other.
There's a perfectly reasonable compromise that looks like the UK. Shotguns are easy to obtain if you're a farmer, handguns are absolutely illegal. Seems to suit both. But for some reason that's not on the table.", "timestamp": "1466143332"}, {"author": "Scott", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793497213102&reply_comment_id=794018513412", "anchor": "fb-793497213102_794018513412", "service": "fb", "text": "→ One of them co-ordination thingies where you can't cooperate with the other guy because he has a history of mashing the defect button.
If gun control is important, if gun control will save lives, then it's your *duty* to go talk to these people and find out what would work, instead of bravely biting the bullet on screwing them over.
Put things on the table you wouldn't otherwise dream of - for example, what about openly racist gun control laws? (That would wipe off a hefty chunk of the collateral damage to law-abiders.) What about instead of or in addition to gun free zones, having \"gun declared zones\" where there's metal detectors and the like to detect guns but if you declare your firearm - and have the right licences - you're allowed to keep it on you? (This would let you create events where the legal gun carriers find it easier than illegal gun carriers to have their weapons on them, as opposed to gun-free zones which create the opposite.)
I dunno, just some ideas on how to make progress on the matter. You might find that gun owners have a wealth of knowledge about preventing gun crime - and as long as it saves even a few lives, whatever laws they do suggest are worth implementing.", "timestamp": "1466149252"}, {"author": "Adam", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793497213102&reply_comment_id=794018797842", "anchor": "fb-793497213102_794018797842", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Yeah I agree. Like I say, most American liberals are coming at this from a position of bad faith. So it's hardly surprising the laws they propose have enormous cost.
My argument was only that restricting illegal gun use is in fact possible. Which your first comment seemed to deny.", "timestamp": "1466149553"}, {"author": "Scott", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793497213102&reply_comment_id=794020848732", "anchor": "fb-793497213102_794020848732", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Mea culpa. Rhetorical flourish, and a bit of technical sleight of hand.
It seemed to me that a great many proponents of gun control just did not have this concept in their model of how gun laws work. So I wanted to put the crispest, cleanest, sharpest specification of the model out there, so that people could then integrate it into their modelling of the situation.
The technicality worth noting is that gun control laws specify what's illegal and what's legal, and most all discussions of gun control that I see are debates over which things are to be pushed from legal to illegal or vice versa.
Say 4 out of 5 people are inherently rule-following, and the fifth is indifferent to the rules. We bring in a gun control law that moves high-capacity magazines from legal to illegal. The rule-followers diligently follow the rules and hand in all their high-capacity magazines. The indifferent one does not, as whether it's nominally legal or not doesn't bother him; it's a matter whether in practice he will actually be subject to force if he does use it.
Now this looks like a success - 80% compliance rate, significant decrease in the number of high-capacity magazines out there. However, these all came from the inherent rule-followers, who were already obeying the rule \"don't fire on fellow citizens\". You're not collecting any of the magazines that have a high chance of actually being used on civilians.
The way to get that is to ramp up enforcement specifically of sanctions that actually affect the indifferent fifth; it's no use proposing harsh new penalties on the rule-followers only (a common mistake, because rule-followers are *the easiest* to enforce these penalties on) because then the indifferent still won't expect to have force applied to them.", "timestamp": "1466152335"}, {"author": "Rich", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793497213102&reply_comment_id=794022894632", "anchor": "fb-793497213102_794022894632", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Long-tail events also need to be considered. In the event of an economic or political meltdown, it's really bad if all your rule-following people lack guns while criminal gangs have them. Guns in the hands of rule-following people is a hedge against certain types of bad futures.", "timestamp": "1466155433"}, {"author": "Adam", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793497213102&reply_comment_id=794023688042", "anchor": "fb-793497213102_794023688042", "service": "fb", "text": "→ \"The way to get that is to ramp up enforcement specifically of sanctions that actually affect the indifferent fifth;\"
Man, words are difficult. See, that's exactly the thing I was trying to say with \"enforcing existing gun laws firmly\" in my first post.", "timestamp": "1466156744"}, {"author": "Scott", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793497213102&reply_comment_id=794026462482", "anchor": "fb-793497213102_794026462482", "service": "fb", "text": "→ \"Words are difficult\" is exactly why I called them Napoleons and Washingtons", "timestamp": "1466160169"}, {"author": "Ross", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793497213102&reply_comment_id=794127909182", "anchor": "fb-793497213102_794127909182", "service": "fb", "text": "→ If rural people don't have gun crimes then I guess their second amendment right to self defense doesn't apply eh. Shotguns etc for keeping the wild pig at bay will have to do!", "timestamp": "1466191781"}, {"author": "Adam", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793497213102&reply_comment_id=794129421152", "anchor": "fb-793497213102_794129421152", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I mean ... shotguns work quite well for self defence against anything more than a meter away, and in the countryside *everything* is more than a meter away.", "timestamp": "1466192516"}, {"author": "Scott", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793497213102&reply_comment_id=794140029892", "anchor": "fb-793497213102_794140029892", "service": "fb", "text": "→ 2nd Amendment doesn't require you to be suffering regular crimes \ud83e\udd14\ud83e\udd14", "timestamp": "1466197473"}, {"author": "Ross", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793497213102&reply_comment_id=794140159632", "anchor": "fb-793497213102_794140159632", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I think Heller was pretty vague on when it was reasonable to require self defense.", "timestamp": "1466197559"}, {"author": "Josh", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793509678122", "anchor": "fb-793509678122", "service": "fb", "text": "I don't know much about guns either, although I have fired a single-shot rifle (probably the popular 22-caliber one, whatever it's called) at a Boy Scout camp; and I like target archery, so I understand some of the appeal of target shooting.
One question I have is: Are rifles more dangerous for mass shootings than pistols? I feel like most (all, basically?) pistols are semi-automatic, but aren't called \"assault weapons\", and no one's trying to ban them.
TSOR turns up http://concealednation.org/.../top-20-most-popular.../ which claims that the most of the 20 most popular \"concealed carry firearms\", which all look like pistols, have a 6 - 8 round capacity, with a few small 5-round revolvers, and a couple of 15-round magazine options.
My recollection from role-playing games is that rifles have better accuracy at long range, which doesn't seem like it would matter at all when you're shooting indiscriminately into a crowd at close range.
So why the focus on rifles rather than pistols? Is there any reason at all other than \"they look scarier\"?", "timestamp": "1466046355"}, {"author": "MN", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793509678122&reply_comment_id=793610770532", "anchor": "fb-793509678122_793610770532", "service": "fb", "text": "→ The answer is, \"yes*\", and the reason why goes back to what assault rifles were made for. (WARNING: massive simplification follows.) Before assault rifles, soldiers in war carried either rifles, which fired single shots and were accurate at long distances, or submachine guns (SMGs), which fired in long bursts and was good for closer-range urban combat, but had mediocre accuracy. Assault rifles were meant to fulfill the role of both so that one soldier could switch back and forth between long-range and short-range combat (as one does in urban combat; think Stalingrad) without having to exchange guns or carry different ammunition. Unfortunately, the technical requirements for shooting a handful of armed men in an apartment block (high magazine capacity, semi-automatic, easily wielded, etc.), mostly deriving from the assault rifle's SMG heritage, also transfer very well to shooting a hundred unarmed civilians in a crowded venue.
Of course, the other, real reason why assault rifles are seen as scary, is because they were so often seen by Americans in the hands of nonwhite people, either fighting wars of national liberation, or engaging in terrorism. (Spasiba, comrades!)", "timestamp": "1466056740"}, {"author": "Benjamin", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793509678122&reply_comment_id=793611149772", "anchor": "fb-793509678122_793611149772", "service": "fb", "text": "→ It's worth considering spree killings vs gun crime. Handguns are much more prevalent in crime because they can be concealed which is very important for most criminals. They kill a lot more people as a result because they are used in a lot more murders. Average deaths per incident is much lower, but the frequency is much higher. See (US Homocides data):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/.../800px...
However, rifles are an easier target for regulation and are much more likely to be used in very high profile spree killings.", "timestamp": "1466057069"}, {"author": "Josh", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793509678122&reply_comment_id=793713060542", "anchor": "fb-793509678122_793713060542", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Hmm, but that still doesn't tell me much. Assault rifles have a military history/purpose that translates well to spree killing, but aren't those technical requirements (high magazine, semi-automatic, easy to wield) also true for pistols? Handguns are more popular for criminals because they're easier to conceal; why wouldn't that also make them popular for spree killings? Or, the other side, why would rifles be more likely to be used in high-profile spree killings?", "timestamp": "1466074694"}, {"author": "Hal", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793509678122&reply_comment_id=794123587842", "anchor": "fb-793509678122_794123587842", "service": "fb", "text": "→ In the 65 mass shootings listed by the Mother Jones investigation, there were 73 handguns and 29 rifles used. In 36 of these shootings there were handguns but no rifles, and only in 12 of them were there rifles but no handguns. Disclaimer: this does not take into account what was used as a primary weapon by people who carried both, nor how many people were killed with each type of weapon.", "timestamp": "1466189184"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1466046696070", "service": "gp", "text": "@Daniel\n\u00a0Unfortunately people can use new technology to get around even the bans on selling the \"lower receiver\", the central part of the gun that we hang most of our regulations off of: \nhttps://ghostgunner.net/", "timestamp": 1466046696}, {"author": "Allison", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793534343692", "anchor": "fb-793534343692", "service": "fb", "text": "It's for this reason that I got a gun-owing friend of mine to take me to a shooting range a couple of weeks ago. Once you hold and shoot one, they are both much less scary and much more scary. Less scary in that I now feel like I could comfortably own one (not that I want to) and could even be okay hunting, and more scary in that it really wouldn't be that hard to seriously hurt someone.", "timestamp": "1466047537"}, {"author": "Daniel", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793563924412", "anchor": "fb-793563924412", "service": "fb", "text": "High capacity magazine bans have been tried. The 1994 \"Federal Assault Weapons Ban\" set the max at 10 rounds. It was in force for 10 years. It doesn't seem to have done much.
I don't have really trustworthy sources on this, but I'm hearing that magazines are just too cheap: too easy to make, too easy to stockpile and too easy to lose track of. The ban couldn't be enforced.
Also, people who are serious about self defense (especially against multiple assailants) often recommend larger magazines, though there seems to be some disagreement.", "timestamp": "1466052581"}, {"author": "Brock", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793563924412&reply_comment_id=793718873892", "anchor": "fb-793563924412_793718873892", "service": "fb", "text": "→ If you are trying to defend yourself from an attacker, don't you want more chances to shoot them? Gun manufacturers fit as many rounds into a pistol's magazine as will fit while still functioning reliably. 14-19 rounds of 9mm is normal for a full-size handgun. If you want less you end up with a spacer in the magazine, wasting space in the grip.", "timestamp": "1466077254"}, {"author": "Adam", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793673000822", "anchor": "fb-793673000822", "service": "fb", "text": "Surely the fact that large rifles/shotguns are big and scary is a good reason to *prefer* them to handguns. Nobody carries a shotgun casually. They're carried for resons. People around the armed guy know that he's armed, which means the actual deterent effect we care about is effective.
The UK has very lax gun laws if you're a farmer and the gun you want is a shotgun. If liberals want to move to do something about city violence without infinging on hunting and home defence maybe stop talking about \"assult weapons\" and large guns generally.", "timestamp": "1466065817"}, {"author": "Julia", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793673000822&reply_comment_id=793805126042", "anchor": "fb-793673000822_793805126042", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Also, by far most gun deaths are suicides. I imagine it's quite a bit harder to shoot yourself with a rifle.", "timestamp": "1466082513"}, {"author": "Adam", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793673000822&reply_comment_id=793806388512", "anchor": "fb-793673000822_793806388512", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Notoriously so with long barrel weapons, pulling triggers with your toes is hard.", "timestamp": "1466082890"}, {"author": "Neil", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793673000822&reply_comment_id=793958573532", "anchor": "fb-793673000822_793958573532", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I agree that it's a reason to prefer them. But along the lines of Jeff's original post, high rate of fire seems to be a more important issue with respect to mass shootings, especially in jurisdictions where you can go to public places with a large gun.", "timestamp": "1466119082"}, {"author": "Francisco", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793702531642", "anchor": "fb-793702531642", "service": "fb", "text": "This viral article helped me to understand a lot about the AR-15, specifically, and why it is so widespread: \"If you\u2019re still with me, then maybe you\u2019re beginning to understand why the AR-15 platform is the most popular type of rifle in America. The AR-15\u2019s incredible flexibility, accuracy, and ease-of-use combine with its status as the most thoroughly tested and debugged firearm in military history to make it massively popular with shooters of all stripes, from hunters to home defense buyers to competitors to police. Parts for the AR are available literally everywhere, and the Internet is chock full of maintenance information and training videos.\"
https://medium.com/.../why-i-need-an-ar-15-832e05ae801c...", "timestamp": "1466073440"}, {"author": "Brock", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793702531642&reply_comment_id=793773594232", "anchor": "fb-793702531642_793773594232", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I have a few quibbles but overall it's a reasonable and accurate article.", "timestamp": "1466080514"}, {"author": "Francisco", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793702531642&reply_comment_id=793774337742", "anchor": "fb-793702531642_793774337742", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Yes, me too.", "timestamp": "1466081063"}, {"author": "Neil", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793702531642&reply_comment_id=793959217242", "anchor": "fb-793702531642_793959217242", "service": "fb", "text": "→ If we get fewer mass shootings by making that guy buy 5 different guns for all his purposes rather than one AR-15, we still do it, right? Increasing costs and inconveniences to him and other gun owners is the kind of public policy tradeoff one should be willing to make.", "timestamp": "1466119421"}, {"author": "James", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793702531642&reply_comment_id=793964152352", "anchor": "fb-793702531642_793964152352", "service": "fb", "text": "→ That's a hugely important point Neil is making. These crimes are crimes of opportunity, regardless of the mental health of the perpetrator. Make a crime a little harder to commit, and it's rate of incidence plummets. That's a fact. The \"bad people will find ways to do bad things\" argument is empirically false, and known to be so.", "timestamp": "1466122075"}, {"author": "Francisco", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793702531642&reply_comment_id=793995005522", "anchor": "fb-793702531642_793995005522", "service": "fb", "text": "→ It is false for suicide only (opportunity does play a larger role in suicidal trajectory and behavioral disinhibition because people contemplate, but fear suicide, they want a method to execute it quickly and efficiently to overcome disinhibition). Not so for mass killers. I don't think people have realized the immense amount of rumination and planning that goes on inside the head of someone who is deciding to murder the firm, or the school, or the country, or the degenerate Western civilization who bombs brown children, etc (the individuals are mere guilty by association). It is a powerful feeling, an addictive daydreaming that does not involve fear. It's a stimulant that motivates. Mental planning takes many months, even years. The pulse shooter prompted the first FBI investigation because he was externalizing verbally his desire to murder others because of american bombing. The incidence of mass killings will probably not plummet, as the work of Peter Turchin shows. Mass killings could even increase, peaking in 2020 (http://peterturchin.com/.../12/15/canaries-in-a-coal-mine/). The focus should be on reducing the number of casualties. Stricter gun control can effectively reduce the number of casualties beyond the the current reduction in gun deaths, but I'm skeptical that it will be very effective on reducing the number of incidents in the US. The number of mass killing incidents in the american society will probably reduce for reasons other than gun control alone.", "timestamp": "1466136280"}, {"author": "Michael", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793870065902", "anchor": "fb-793870065902", "service": "fb", "text": "Jeff, one other possible way to educate yourself is to sign up for a gun safety course at a local range. It seems like most ranges have these. I took my son to one, and there was about an hour of lecture, followed by the opportunity to shoot a rented gun at the range. That will help demystify guns quite a bit. If the local range doesn't have that particular program, you can probably go to a local range with a gun owner, and he will explain gun safety and let you shoot. I have a good friend who has made sort of a crusade of this.", "timestamp": "1466093709"}, {"author": "Peter", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793870065902&reply_comment_id=793928403992", "anchor": "fb-793870065902_793928403992", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Jeff, if you're interested in learning more from a sympathetic source, you should talk to Bob. NTMM and president of the Massachusetts chapter of the Liberal Gun Club.", "timestamp": "1466108157"}, {"author": "Bob", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793870065902&reply_comment_id=793933873032", "anchor": "fb-793870065902_793933873032", "service": "fb", "text": "→ And a Massachusetts licensed firearms instructor!", "timestamp": "1466110462"}, {"author": "Bob", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793870065902&reply_comment_id=793958029622", "anchor": "fb-793870065902_793958029622", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I'd be happy to discuss firearms with you and anyone else who is interested, but only face to face", "timestamp": "1466118581"}, {"author": "Dragan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793955524642", "anchor": "fb-793955524642", "service": "fb", "text": "I think it's important to understand gun deaths vs. homicide as well. Places with different gun control laws have seen a reduction in suicide and accidental death, which is more of an issue of access at all, vs some of the specifics.", "timestamp": "1466117050"}, {"author": "Mike", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793979576442", "anchor": "fb-793979576442", "service": "fb", "text": "Real military weapons are restricted, and very difficult to obtain legally. So-called \"assault rifles\" are just low-power rifles that are made to look \"military\" by the designers. Most boring, not military looking at all, hunting rifles have more power. The problem is not the tools, it's the hate that drives people to use them to kill", "timestamp": "1466130131"}, {"author": "Ralph", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793979576442&reply_comment_id=794091686772", "anchor": "fb-793979576442_794091686772", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I question the \"low-power\" statement. .223 is .223 whether it's a military or a hunting round......except the military round does not mushroom on impact (Geneva convention and all that).", "timestamp": "1466178386"}, {"author": "Ari", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793979576442&reply_comment_id=794092719702", "anchor": "fb-793979576442_794092719702", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Ralph I had thought .223 was on the smaller side for rifle calibers.", "timestamp": "1466179229"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793979576442&reply_comment_id=794095159812", "anchor": "fb-793979576442_794095159812", "service": "fb", "text": "→ It is on the small side, it is lower power, and it's exactly what the military uses. Having it be smaller means they can carry more bullets and have less recoil.", "timestamp": "1466180762"}, {"author": "Hal", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793979576442&reply_comment_id=794097095932", "anchor": "fb-793979576442_794097095932", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Isn't it true that caliber does not necessarily prescribe power? Regardless, a rifle's power is not the most important factor in how dangerous it is. I can do a lot more damage with a semi-automatic .22 than I can with a muzzle-loading .50.", "timestamp": "1466181952"}, {"author": "Ralph", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793979576442&reply_comment_id=794097634852", "anchor": "fb-793979576442_794097634852", "service": "fb", "text": "→ .223 has, if I remember correctly, a muzzle velocity of over 4,000 fps. E = mass X velocity squared. The same powder charge will drive a smaller bullet faster", "timestamp": "1466182333"}, {"author": "Nathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793979576442&reply_comment_id=794099610892", "anchor": "fb-793979576442_794099610892", "service": "fb", "text": "→ For a visual aid, .22 and .223 are *very* different: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/.../04/22_penny_223-tfb.jpg", "timestamp": "1466183499"}, {"author": "Hal", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793979576442&reply_comment_id=794109111852", "anchor": "fb-793979576442_794109111852", "service": "fb", "text": "→ I was just using .22 as an example of a low-power weapon.", "timestamp": "1466185540"}, {"author": "Hal", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793979576442&reply_comment_id=794109181712", "anchor": "fb-793979576442_794109181712", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Couldn't you have two .223 rounds with different amounts of powder?", "timestamp": "1466185601"}, {"author": "Ralph", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=793979576442&reply_comment_id=795078424342", "anchor": "fb-793979576442_795078424342", "service": "fb", "text": "→ You could, especially if you reload your own but they are fairly standardized commercially. Generally, you decide what you intend to shoot and buy your gun accordingly (Elk at 1,000 yards? 7mm magnum. Deer in the woods? .35 Remington, .44 magnum, 44-40, etc. Rats at the dump? .22 LR)........anyway, that's what I was taught.....it would not surprise me, these days, to see people using their AR-15 to shoot those rats.", "timestamp": "1466426109"}, {"author": "Dean", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=794154201492", "anchor": "fb-794154201492", "service": "fb", "text": "The term \"assault rifle\" is the military term for \"short barreled hunting rifle\", and \"sniper rifle\" is the military name for \"long barreled hunting rifle\". These terms date to before WWI.
High capacity magazines date to the 16th century.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../the-history-of.../
Grenades date to the 15th century
http://www.britannica.com/technology/grenade
The \"shot heard round the world\" was a British action to seize CANNON held by civilians. Civilians met them at the Bridge at Concord. This was a YEAR before the Declaration of Independence.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_heard_round_the_world", "timestamp": "1466203846"}, {"author": "Philip", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/793355018062?comment_id=794865481082", "anchor": "fb-794865481082", "service": "fb", "text": "We can follow Australia's lead...No need to reinvent the wheel:
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback", "timestamp": "1466396309"}]}