Yeah but are firearms designed for magazines? For magazines of 5 rds?
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.
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).
Also great questions. Subverting poly and getting favourable answers to them requires meeting society for the discussion at hand.
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.
There is no universal or settled societal consensus on where the acceptable threshold lies.
That's just a persuasive metaphor implying inevitability.
Many frontline officers publicly oppose or criticize model-based bans, OIC processes, claims about “assault-style” definitions. There is no monolithic LEO consensus.
Fair. I went back and changed to "critical mass" in one place. It's not a true consensus.
You mean like when the reaction to Chiang's amendment stopped your slippery slope dead in it's tracks in December 2022/Q1 2023?
I didn't say there was. I've never said anything in defense of model based bans, OIC processes, or "assault style". Those are your windmills to tilt at.
It probably would have. Maybe there would be 20 dead instead of 15. Or 51 dead like at Christchurch or 6 dead a la Quebec city. Leading with a UHaul or IEDs could have increased the death count too.
Where did you get your data?
Caveat- this is what I see as a best case forward, not what I would like in a vacuum.
In my opinion you don't change the conversation with Poly, you provide the more reasonable, informed voice and engage meaningfully with government so that they (Poly) seem completely unreasonable to the electorate at large and get tuned out.
No. Lots. See above.
Nope- but I don't think papering over the capability difference is the path forward. I don't think you can win long term by telling people the sky is purple.
Aggregated data compiled from a few sources like Public Safety Canada and House of Commons web pages.
Thank you. Appreciate it. If I recall correctly suicide by firearms are about 25% of all completions.
I can fire 22rds a minute on a target at 100m with a fixed magazine bolt action made in 1914. At the end of the day if someone wants to harm someone it doesn’t matter what type of firearm they have. Only whether or not they legally should have been able to acquire it.
A. How many with a 30rd box fed semi? How many hours of practice to get to that fraction?
Eurika, I have the solution. Ban all Firearms like the UK. While not a total ban, it's close enough:
The only way to really change the public conversation about gun control is to get a grip on gun crime. As long as there are daily stories on the news of random shootings on the streets Joe & Jane public are going to be concerned about guns. What type of guns they are and whether they are legal or illegal guns won't really matter. It's an uphill battle fighting gun control as long as the largely non-gun owning majority urban public keeps hearing about people being shot on the streets.
Does it matter? If my intent is to kill I have the means.
Good for you. I can fire 30 rounds in about 6 seconds from a semi-auto, and there's less chance of me coming off aim from taking my hand off the trigger to cock the bolt. Also, you've got tons of experience. Can someone with less experience and practice pull off the same?
Oh well I guess since we cant stop someone from using a knife or a car for mass kurder, we shouldn't bother trying to stop them from using a gun! While we're at it, let's bring back fully automatics and hand grenades for public use. Sure, they could be used to cause mass casualties, but people are still commiting those atrocities anyways, so what's the point?
Accurately or dumping the mag?
That’s a misrepresentation of the point. The argument isn’t that we shouldn’t try to prevent attacks. His argument appears to be that rate of fire is rarely the limiting factor in mass casualty events, which I agree. Extreme scenarios like Las Vegas are outliers, and focusing on them leads to overbroad rules that do little to reduce realworld harm. Cars, knives, and other means show that attackers intent, target selection, and opportunity often matter more than mechanical capability. Again, the average death toll in the US during mass shootings with AR15s (and similar rifles) is 11, not 30 or 60 or 150.
Your missing my point. If the argument is those items are too dangerous for the public to own why are you not going after items shown to be equally dangerous if not more (even if the public doesn’t perceive them as such)?
To the public it does. You don't get to define what does and does not matter to the public. You do get to abdicate your voice by trying.
Who gets to decide who has access and why? Which affiliations and comments trigger the flags that have rights/priviledges restricted?
Explicitly addressed in the conceptual discussion of risk vs utility.
