Can we talk civilly about guns?

[NWRatCon]

I'm a gun owner and enthusiast, as well as a student of history, a retired soldier, lawyer, journalist and political scientist (yes all of those - a very full life), and an opinionated S.O.B. What I'd like to have is a rational, cool, polite discussion about firearms: what they are, what they do, and their place in modern society. I'm not interested in extremist views or partisan pontificating, but a serious think about the topic.

As I am wont to be pedantic, I'll start. Guns are projectile weapons, an outgrowth of bows and arrows, which themselves were derived from spears and related piercing weapons. The idea was to hit the target from a distance and not be in range of, originally, the teeth, claws and bulk of the intended game. They are designed to kill at a distance.

Almost from the beginning, the killing properties of projectile weapons were turned on our own kind, the motivations being dominance, territorial control and resource acquisition. Those motivations continue to be relevant even today.

As the sophistication of our weapons continued to advance, the breadth of the territories, and scope of slaughter followed. The same has been true, in an iterative process, of firearms - guns - in our various societies.

The first use of "firearms" as we know them today was recorded in China in the 12th century in the form of a "fire Lance", which used what became "gun powder" to propel a Lance some distance, and shortly thereafter incorporated shrapnel upon explosion. Thus artillery, and warfare, were the first known use of the technology. In the 14th century the first "guns" (hand artillery) were deployed, using the expanding/expulsive nature of the powder, confined within a tube, to expel projectiles toward the target (enemy humans).

More to follow.

 

[VanceMack]

There are lots of types of guns...they shoot lots of types of projectiles, and have numerous uses.

The use is very individual. I dont see any point in arguing or bickering over what is or isnt a weapon of war because frankly...every weapon can be employed in a wartime scenario. SOME weapons are specifically designed for target shooting...which is a very popular sport. Long range precision shooting is fun, requires a ton of skill, and once you get your equipment doesnt require a lot of cost since you typically dont churn through ammo. We currently have around 9 million people a year in the US alone thay participate in competitive shooting events.

Some are just good ol plinking guns. Around 30 million people a year in the US engage in regular target shooting outings. Others are bought for hunting. numebrs Ive seen on that run around 40 million licensed hunters in a given year.

A lot of guns are manufactured for sporting purposes...black powder rifles, black powder pistols. Black powder shooting is unregulated...the guns arent even classified as a 'firearm'...and there are millions that target shoot, engage in cowboy action shooting, and hunting activities annually.

If I was a betting man, I'd say about 60% of gun owners felt the need to buy one and let them sit in their storage areas and rarely use them. Some bought them for home defense. Some bought them for personal defense. Some bought them because they hear people talk about banning them and say screw it...Im getting one before they ban em.

I think the numbers of gun owners and firearms are extremely low compared to what is reported. I'd bet money that the numbers are around 170 million law abiding citizen gun owners that own them responsibly.

 

[SkyChief]

Many people whom I have talked to (face to face - not internet people) express concerns about the killing power of modern firearms. Many want the government to restrict the types of weapons we are allowed to possess, and they want government to select the individuals who are allowed to possess the sanctioned weapons.

Basically, they want a gun-ownership system like Australia or New Zealand. In Australia, one must obtain special authorization (license) from the Police to legally own gun(s). If authorized, the types of weapons are strictly limited. Civilians may not possess any semi-auto rifles of any kind. In Australia, only Police and Military may use semi-auto and fully automatic rifles.

Gun owners I have talked to do not share this view. They believe that they have a constitutional right to have guns, and they don't think that they should need a license, or special gun liability insurance to keep their guns.

 

[soylentgreen]

There are lots of types of guns...they shoot lots of types of projectiles, and have numerous uses.

The use is very individual. I dont see any point in arguing or bickering over what is or isnt a weapon of war because frankly...every weapon can be employed in a wartime scenario. SOME weapons are specifically designed for target shooting...which is a very popular sport. Long range precision shooting is fun, requires a ton of skill, and once you get your equipment doesnt require a lot of cost since you typically dont churn through ammo. We currently have around 9 million people a year in the US alone thay participate in competitive shooting events.

Some are just good ol plinking guns. Around 30 million people a year in the US engage in regular target shooting outings. Others are bought for hunting. numebrs Ive seen on that run around 40 million licensed hunters in a given year.

A lot of guns are manufactured for sporting purposes...black powder rifles, black powder pistols. Black powder shooting is unregulated...the guns arent even classified as a 'firearm'...and there are millions that target shoot, engage in cowboy action shooting, and hunting activities annually.

If I was a betting man, I'd say about 60% of gun owners felt the need to buy one and let them sit in their storage areas and rarely use them. Some bought them for home defense. Some bought them for personal defense. Some bought them because they hear people talk about banning them and say screw it...Im getting one before they ban em.

I think the numbers of gun owners and firearms are extremely low compared to what is reported. I'd bet money that the numbers are around 170 million law abiding citizen gun owners that own them responsibly.

Key word there is responsible. And america sets a very low bar as to what is responsible compared to any other country. One example would be the idea that americans think leaving a loaded gun unsecured is being responsible. An action that would be illegal in any other country. In america gun safety rules are mostly simply rules that can be followed or not it is left up to chance and how paranoid the gun owner is. Where as in countries such as have been mentioned those same universal gun safety rules are laws as well.

If I was a betting man, I'd say about 60% of gun owners felt the need to buy one and let them sit in their storage areas and rarely use them. Some bought them for home defense. Some bought them for personal defense. Some bought them because they hear people talk about banning them and say screw it...Im getting one before they ban em.

In other words the reason "all "of the americans who buy guns whether they get used or not is because of self defense. Are you enough of a betting man to bet that in the other countries self defense would be only a minor consideration as to the reasons for buying a gun.

And of course the typical contradiction of an american pro gun person. One who thinks to themselves that they are law abiding citizens so need no regulation. And then talk about breaking the law by hoarding banned guns. Care to walk us through the logic on that one.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

We’ve talked at great length productively about firearms, so you know my views. But I will say this. It genuinely is one of the sparingly few issues where the extreme views on both sides bother me.

I just don’t see how there are so few people between;

“guns have no place in a civilized society outside of possibly hunting. We should ban all firearms and heavily regulate hunting.”

And,

“Guns are the cornerstone of all freedoms. If I can’t walk into a Walmart and walk out with an AR15 then we basically live in the USSR.”

Like, there are so many people that just seem…I dont know…disgusted and scared by guns period. Like they’ll explode if they look at them wrong. And then there are people that think guns are more important right than free speech, and that any regulation is some kind of slippery slope.

 

[NWRatCon]

These original "hand guns" were frightfully inaccurate, which necessitated deployment against massed targets or large locations. (I'm eliding from the discussion the development of other projectile weapons such as ballistas, trebuchets and catapults for "brevity"- ha!). Within about a century, as barrels narrowed and elongated, and projectiles shrank for portability, guns became more useful for other purposes, like hunting, although it was really the "shotgun"/blunderbuss that was used that way, at first.

By the renaissance, the gun or firearm as we know it today was gaining acceptance as a weapon of war, and, for the elite, began to see development for hunting purposes, as accuracy began to improve. That sequence may (or may not) be relevant to our discussion as it develops. In the 15th century improvements were made: the introduction of the matchlock; the discovery of rifling (which wasn't incorporated into hand guns (which included long guns) until the mid-16th century), the continued elongation of the barrel all improved accuracy, and thus utility beyond mass fires on groups of combatants.

It was really the mid-17th century when the firearm as we know it today began to emerge. The introduction of wheel locks and flintlocks sped up the ignition process and timing, pistols - which we now call handguns - were introduced, and rifling started to make single-target use practical for the first time (at longer than point-blank ranges). But even well into the 18th century, vast the majority of firearms were muskets - long-barreled, flintlock, single-shot, hand-loaded weapons - that were cumbersome to operate, but were gaining utility, primarily for warfare, but also for game acquisition.

Along with the development of the musket, came the development of the pistol. In the mid 18th century, the "dueling pistol" replaced the rapier as the weapon-of-choice for gentlemen to settle grudge matches: "a true dueling pistol was officially standardized in 1777, as "a 9 or 10 inch barreled, smooth bore flintlock of 1 inch bore, carrying a ball of 48 to the pound." Often lavishly decorated, the pistols are made until dueling falls out of favor in the mid-1800." NPR

 

[NWRatCon]

Oooh. Nibbles! I love that discussion has already started.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

One example would be the idea that americans think leaving a loaded gun unsecured is being responsible.

Asinine projection

 

[soylentgreen]

Asinine projection

No, Just a disagreement on what americans call unsecured.

 

[Antiwar]

With respect:

Guns are barbaric weapons- there's no getting around that fact. The US government is #1 in barbaric weapons, except for Russia having a small percentage more nuclear weapons.

Having a civil discussion about having barbaric weapons in a supposedly civil society is like having a civil discussion on torture, the death penalty, and how much chattel slavery belongs in a supposedly civil society- it's a discussion about how much barbarity we should have in our supposedly civil society.

 

[NWRatCon]

I'll truncate my disquisition somewhat to get to the other points raised.

It was really the civil war, the introduction of cartridges, repeating arms. and ubiquity of experience (the majority of recruits had never owned nor fired a gun in their lives) that changed gun "culture" in the United States. That experience accelerated in the 20th century. (It was only the very end of the 19th century that the developments that have plagued society since began to emerge - double-action revolvers, box magazines, semi-auto pistols and rifles.) World War I introduced "machine guns" to the public, the gangster era to its use in civilian massacres, and in 1934 the first real national effort at gun regulation universal limitations on firearms. Prior to that, gun regulations were primarily State and local matters.

 

[SkyChief]

I'm a gun owner and enthusiast, as well as a student of history, a retired soldier, lawyer, journalist and political scientist (yes all of those - a very full life), and an opinionated S.O.B. What I'd like to have is a rational, cool, polite discussion about firearms: what they are, what they do, and their place in modern society. I'm not interested in extremist views or partisan pontificating, but a serious think about the topic. . .

As a gun owner/enthusiast and lawyer, would you object to being forced to obtain liability insurance for your gun(s)?

California is in the process of passing legislation that would require all gun owners to buy a special gun liability insurance. Many Non-gun owners are elated with the proposed bill, however, the gun owners (generally) feel that the gun insurance mandate is an infringement on their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

 

[aociswundumho]

We’ve talked at great length productively about firearms, so you know my views. But I will say this. It genuinely is one of the sparingly few issues where the extreme views on both sides bother me.

I just don’t see how there are so few people between;

“guns have no place in a civilized society outside of possibly hunting. We should ban all firearms and heavily regulate hunting.”

No, what they actually believe is: "We should ban all civilian gun ownership, but the public sector should remain armed to the teeth."

They want one group of human beings disarmed, while allowing another group of human beings to be heavily armed. If anything, they've got it exactly backwards, because when the private sector turns violent, you get Uvalde. When the public sector turns violent, you get Auschwitz.

 

[NWRatCon]

A firearm is a tool, used by a person, to deliver a projectile to a target. The nature of each of those elements is relevant to this discussion. I started by talking about the firearm itself and its utility. Now I'd like to discuss the projectiles.

Most people - even frequent shooters - have no experience with what a bullet/projectile does to flesh. (Hunters and veterans are the minority of gun owners.) In many respects, that's a good thing. But, that reality is important to this discussion, because ignorance breeds misunderstanding, and affects policy.

What is often overlooked in these discussions are the ballistic characteristics of firearms and ammunition. Different bullets reach and affect targets in different ways, as does speed of the bullet and caliber. This is relevant to discussions of utility and dangerousness, as well. Doctors have the most real-world experience in this matter.

The study of the projectile (bullets/pellets) is called "ballistics" - because bullets, once they leave the firearm, are uncontrolled. Speed, shape, size, materials, and weight all affect "ballistic characteristics" of the projectile.

The study of the effects of impact of the projectile is called "ballistic pathology" (gunshot wounds or GSW). Technically, "A gunshot wound is a penetrating injury caused by a projectile (e.g. a bullet) from a gun (typically firearm or air gun).[11][12] Damages may include bleeding, bone fractures, organ damage, wound infection, loss of the ability to move part of the body and, in more severe cases, death.[2] Damage depends on the part of the body hit, the path the bullet follows through the body, and the type and speed of the bullet. (Wikipedia, with references). "The characteristics and severity of a gunshot wound are determined by the design of the weapon and projectile, the intermediate targets the projectile encounters between the gun muzzle and the body, and the sequence of tissues encountered along the projectile path." Gunshot wounds: 1. Bullets, ballistics, and mechanisms of injury. (Hollerman, 1990)

 

[aociswundumho]

I'll truncate my disquisition somewhat to get to the other points raised.

It was really the civil war, the introduction of cartridges, repeating arms. and ubiquity of experience (the majority of recruits had never owned nor fired a gun in their lives) that changed gun "culture" in the United States. That experience accelerated in the 20th century. (It was only the very end of the 19th century that the developments that have plagued society since began to emerge - double-action revolvers, box magazines, semi-auto pistols and rifles.) World War I introduced "machine guns" to the public, the gangster era to its use in civilian massacres, and in 1934 the first real national effort at gun regulation universal limitations on firearms. Prior to that, gun regulations were primarily State and local matters.

The "gangster era" was caused by an idiotic progressive policy - alcohol prohibition. In 1933 when the 18th amendment was repealed, the murder rate dropped like a stone, but the vermin in congress passed the NFA in anyway in 1934.

 

[NWRatCon]

I think I said at the outset, "I'm not interested in extremist views or partisan pontificating, we have plenty of threads with that content, but a serious think about the topic." I guess some of our participants missed this caveat.

 

[mrjurrs]

Many people whom I have talked to (face to face - not internet people) express concerns about the killing power of modern firearms. Many want the government to restrict the types of weapons we are allowed to possess, and they want government to select the individuals who are allowed to possess the sanctioned weapons.

Basically, they want a gun-ownership system like Australia or New Zealand. In Australia, one must obtain special authorization (license) from the Police to legally own gun(s). If authorized, the types of weapons are strictly limited. Civilians may not possess any semi-auto rifles of any kind. In Australia, only Police and Military may use semi-auto and fully automatic rifles.

Gun owners I have talked to do not share this view. They believe that they have a constitutional right to have guns, and they don't think that they should need a license, or special gun liability insurance to keep their guns.

Liability insurance does not infringe on anyone's right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd doesn't mention anything about procuring guns.

 

[NWRatCon]

Again, I think it useful in separating this discussion into its constituent parts:

A firearm is a
tool, used by a
person, to deliver a
projectile to a
target.

Some technical discussion seems appropriate, as are philosophy, ethics, etc. It might be helpful to specify which of these elements a comment is intended to address.

(I'll note in passing, this discussion is in the Loft, which has separate guidelines. I'm not here to police them. That will be the Moderators' job.)

 

[Antiwar]

... their place in modern society.

With respect:

Are guns barbaric weapons?

To categorize my question (per #18), the above is an ethical question.

 

[NWRatCon]

As a gun owner/enthusiast and lawyer, would you object to being forced to obtain liability insurance for your gun(s)?

California is in the process of passing legislation that would require all gun owners to buy a special gun liability insurance. Many Non-gun owners are elated with the proposed bill, however, the gun owners (generally) feel that the gun insurance mandate is an infringement on their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

This is a bit weedy in nature, but no, I would not object. As a "target defendant", I carry universal insurance for a variety of reasons. Perhaps you'd like to contextualize your comments?

I think that the purpose of such legislation is directed to the persons portion of the discussion. A lot of ink (virtual and literal) has been spilled over who should be allowed to own, possess, use firearms. It seems to me that this is in the nature of ensuring that those persons are "responsible".

Have you considered who would benefit from such legislation. Is this a social issue that is deserving of consideration?

 

[NWRatCon]

With respect:

Are guns barbaric weapons?

It really depends on the context, doesn't it? I don't think paper targets have a view on the subject, do you? I suspect, if game animals consider the prospect even briefly, they may have a view on the matter, but in many circumstances they may prefer the immediacy of a gunshot to the elongated process of being devoured by a predator. What do you think?

I'll go back to my matrix. A gun is a tool used to put a projectile on a target. "Barbarism" seems to be a broader human construct that is not particularly adaptable to the discussion absent context.

As a tool, do I think that firearms have utility to engage in barbaric acts? Absolutely. Uvalde, Newtown, etc., etc., and etc., have demonstrated that in spades.

 

[Antiwar]

It really depends on the context, doesn't it? I don't think paper targets have a view on the subject, do you? I suspect, if game animals consider the prospect even briefly, they may have a view on the matter, but in many circumstances they may prefer the immediacy of a gunshot to the elongated process of being devoured by a predator. What do you think?

I'll go back to my matrix. A gun is a tool used to put a projectile on a target. "Barbarism" seems to be a broader human construct that is not particularly adaptable to the discussion absent context.

With respect:

The context of guns being barbaric is completely obvious.

Note: I was editing #19 when you replied. The context is "modern society."

 

[SkyChief]

This is a bit weedy in nature, but no, I would not object. As a "target defendant", I carry universal insurance for a variety of reasons.

Ok, thanks for responding. I had presumed that as a lawyer you would object to insurance mandates on something that we have a constitutional right to have. It was wrong of me to presume that.

Perhaps you'd like to contextualize your comments?

I think that the purpose of such legislation is directed to the persons portion of the discussion. A lot of ink (virtual and literal) has been spilled over who should be allowed to own, possess, use firearms. It seems to me that this is in the nature of ensuring that those persons are "responsible".

Currently, there are plenty of laws which holds a shooter liable for physical (and emotional) damages to targets resulting from the use of his/her gun. Any additional liability torts are redundant, IMO.

Have you considered who would benefit from such legislation. Is this a social issue that is deserving of consideration?

The purpose of the liability insurance mandate is twofold:
1) make it harder for gun-owners to be "legal", and give law enforcement an additional tool to question a person who has not committed a crime.
2) enable bigger payouts to litigants who sue gun owners for damages.

 

[NWRatCon]

With respect:

The context of guns being barbaric is completely obvious.

Note: I was editing #19 when you replied. The context is "modern society."

I was also in the process of editing. Adding, "As a tool, do I think that firearms have utility to engage in barbaric acts? Absolutely. Uvalde, Newtown, etc., etc., and etc., have demonstrated that in spades."

As a, hopefully constructive, criticism, I'll note a habit of throwing out truncated, pejorative, undeveloped thoughts in discussions. I'm hoping to draw out and develop those thoughts in this context.

What is it about guns in particular that makes them "barbaric"? Barbarism seems to be associated with the use and user, not the tool, in my view, as it is a social construction. I'm of the opinion that they can be used, too easily, to engage in such behavior. What, then, are constructive, practical solutions to address that consideration? I have considerable thoughts on the subject, which I will likely get to in time.

 

[NWRatCon]

The question of the thread title is still to be discerned, but I see reason for optimism.

Notwithstanding being a gun enthusiast, an experienced shooter in a variety of scenarios, and a detailed student of history and the law, I, generally, am in favor of significant regulation of firearms, including ammunition and peripherals. But, I'm fully cognizant of the interests of owners, the social complications of restrictions, and the complicated interactions between policy and effects. Nonetheless, I think there is a vast swath of territory for legitimate, constructive, thoughtful discussion.

The effects of firearm usage in society, and the United States in particular, are myriad and well-documented. The term barbaric has valence, here. But, for every negative connotation, there are salutary effects. Wars, a consistent component of human interaction, have been instigated and concluded with their ubiquitous use.

One aspect that I touched on earlier, the effect of the projectiles, is not well understood by the general public. Instead, possession, carriage and use are shrouded in myth and misconception. In movies and other media bad guys drop immediately, often without blood, while good guys persevere despite repeated trauma. Neither accurately describe the processes.

Most damage by a bullet is internal. It is often non-fatal, unless the use is deliberate and accurate. But it is rarely inconsequential. Even a "flesh wound" is permanent. Some rounds and platforms are designed to inflict catastrophic damage with minimal accuracy.

The power of a bullet is a combination of various factors - impact speed, kinetic impact, shape, material and behavior, and location of impact. Usage in one application is often inadvisable in other contexts. Even in war there are official limitations - dum-dums, hollow-points, frangible materials and adulterated rounds are prohibited as "inhumane", yet ubiquitous in civillian applications. These are not considerations of commonplace discussions.

I am in favor of expert evaluation and specificity rather than broad-brush, uninformed debate.