The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Fabius]

I see your counter point. And if I thought this is where it all ends you might be right. But its not, not even close.

This is key. For the proponents of gun control no risk is acceptable, no utility is acceptable. Gun regulations in 2014 had achieved a degree of stability and social consensus. The LPC and Poly have destroyed that consensus, if was not lawful owners that did that.

There always is an expectation that lawful citizens will give up more property because, pick your justification. There is no indication that Poly, the Government nor the LPC are negotiating in good faith.

 

[Jarnhamar]

You are fixated on capability as determined by risk vs utility.
Okay, what technical components increase risk?
How are we defining risk? Risk to what?
How do we manage risk? What are the mechanisms by which we can mitigate risk? Ie licensing vs banning.

How are defining utility? Utility to who? Hunters, Farmers, trappers, sport shooters, historians, collectors, home owners, young, old, ?

Hunters very much want to act like their firearms aren't just as capable as military styled firearms when school shootings and mass shootings are being discussed. Their apathy towards sport shooters plight will shoot them in the ass when their bolt actuon "sniper rifles" and close range shotguns are on the list next.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Hunters very much want to act like their firearms aren't just as capable as military styled firearms when school shootings and mass shootings are being discussed. Their apathy towards sport shooters plight will shoot them in the ass when their bolt actuon "sniper rifles" and close range shotguns are on the list next.

I understand the sentiment but know that not all of us are like that. And some of us know we are all one in the same.

 

[suffolkowner]

In context, a hunting gun is one whose mix of traditional use and functional characteristics place it too low on the the "risk" and too high on the "utility" axes to be a politically viable target for further restriction/ banning in the eyes of the overall public.

In legislative terms: any gun that is used for hunting that is not prohibitted as:

• is not a handgun
• discharges centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner; and
• was originally designed with a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity of six cartridges or more.

Yeah but are firearms designed for magazines? For magazines of 5 rds?
How does the firearm know what magazine is used? I wonder if most of these firearms are designed with 5 rd magazines or just sold that way in certain markets?

 

[IKnowNothing]

You are fixated on capability as determined by risk vs utility.

Let's restate that. I acknowledge that the locus of the debate rests in societal perception of risk vs. utility, and accept that there is certain societal consensus that a large aspect of the "risk" associated with firearms is determined by capability.

Okay, what technical components increase risk?
How are we defining risk? Risk to what?

Good questions. Starts with acknowledging the societal consensus surrounding capability, specifically around rate and volume of fire- a critical mass of society has decided that there is a point on the curve where they are unwilling to accept the "risk"* created by the ability to lay down a certain volume of fire. To argue against that critical mass might as well be trying to push back the tide with a 4x8 sheet of plywood (doing so with a hand tied behind your back by reality based on your acceptance/ agreement with the LEO SME's professional opinion on the matter).

* or accepting enough of the existence of the risk that they're unwilling to fight against regulation

At present, that increased risk as driven by volume of fire capability is being defined by proxy by the functional characteristics that drive it- SA, capacity, reloading mechanism. Would there be value in defining that volume in terms of rounds per unit of time?

How do we manage risk? What are the mechanisms by which we can mitigate risk? Ie licensing vs banning.

Also great questions. Subverting poly and getting favourable answers to them requires meeting society for the discussion at hand.

How are defining utility? Utility to who? Hunters, Farmers, trappers, sport shooters, historians, collectors, home owners, young, old, ?

Utility to society. It's a frustratingly nebulous concept. Is it actual societal benefit? Enjoyment by individuals in society? How do you equate small utility to many vs. great utility to few? What's the utility of vice like drinking that's a net negative but has enough mass of enjoyment behind that keeps it from being banned? No hard answers, just relationships that play out through time.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Good questions. Starts with acknowledging the societal consensus surrounding capability, specifically around rate and volume of fire-

There is no universal or settled societal consensus on where the acceptable threshold lies.

To argue against that critical mass might as well be trying to push back the tide with a 4x8 sheet of plywood

That's just a persuasive metaphor implying inevitability.
In reality gun policy has changed directions before, Opposition has successfully altered or delayed legislation, and Governments respond to electoral pressure, not just abstract consensus.

(doing so with a hand tied behind your back by reality based on your acceptance/ agreement with the LEO SME's professional opinion on the matter).

Many frontline officers publicly oppose or criticize model-based bans, OIC processes, claims about “assault-style” definitions. There is no monolithic LEO consensus.