An observation on gun control

[Steve81]

This was inspired by @TheVat's post on another one of my topics, so blame him if you don't like what I have to say 😛

Quote

They might be more willing to listen to scientists, given that scientists created them.  OTOH, there's also the nightmare scenario of Far Right coalitions that have AIs and feed them garbage data, the old GIGO problem.  Or SkyNet scenarios, where the AIs develop very different priorities from human ones.  

Suppose conservatives, in order to combat the bolded threat, propose a ban on modern computing power & internet bandwidth. How would you feel about such a proposition?

This is to some degree, this is how some conservatives (the halfway rational ones at least) feel about assault rifle bans. I don't know how many of you have spent extensive amounts of time in rural areas, but guns are just another tool in the kit for them to use to dispatch pests, defend themselves against unwanted "guests", recreation, and so forth. For them, going from an AR-15 to a bolt action rifle would be like us going from modern Intel and AMD processors to the days of the original Pentium series. Food for thought.

Edited August 12, 2023 by Steve81

[TheVat]

As someone with extensive time in rural settings, I have encountered a fair number of people who still find the bolt action rifle quite sufficient.  And would view the assault style AR15 as unsuitable for a sporting hunt.  A well-aimed shot from Grandpa's rifle will bring down a mule deer more effectively than an AR15.   The rifle will shoot more precisely and will usually have a round that works on larger game, like a 30-06, while the .223 round that most AR series weapons use is not as good. (though its report is fine for scaring off cougars)  Most pests were scared off, in my and my wife's family history of ranching and farming, by banging kitchen pots together, which saves ammunition and decreases chances of a stray round sailing through your herd...or your neighbor's kitchen a half mile away.  😀

So the computer chip analogy might need work.  

[Steve81]

14 minutes ago, TheVat said:

As someone with extensive time in rural settings, I have encountered a fair number of people who still find the bolt action rifle quite sufficient.  And would view the assault style AR15 as unsuitable for a sporting hunt.  A well-aimed shot from Grandpa's rifle will bring down a mule deer more effectively than an AR15.   The rifle will shoot more precisely and will usually have a round that works on larger game, like a 30-06, while the .223 round that most AR series weapons use is not as good. (though its report is fine for scaring off cougars)  Most pests were scared off, in my and my wife's family history of ranching and farming, by banging kitchen pots together, which saves ammunition and decreases chances of a stray round sailing through your herd...or your neighbor's kitchen a half mile away.  😀

So the computer chip analogy might need work.  

It's not perfect; clearly an AR-15 is not a deep and abiding need in civilian hands. Then again, I could argue that a Pentium 4 and a 1.5mbps line would be perfectly adequate for most people's purposes as well. The world worked just fine with that kind of capability ~20 years ago. I could presumably enjoy this forum with such a machine. I would also note that the damage a rogue hacker group could bring about is vastly greater than what a madman with a semi-auto rifle can accomplish.

And just for the record: yes, I support gun controls.

 

Edited August 12, 2023 by Steve81

[CharonY]

13 hours ago, Steve81 said:

It's not perfect; clearly an AR-15 is not a deep and abiding need in civilian hands. Then again, I could argue that a Pentium 4 and a 1.5mbps line would be perfectly adequate for most people's purposes as well. The world worked just fine with that kind of capability ~20 years ago. I could presumably enjoy this forum with such a machine. I would also note that the damage a rogue hacker group could bring about is vastly greater than what a madman with a semi-auto rifle can accomplish.

And just for the record: yes, I support gun controls.

 

That does not seem like a good comparison, a faster computer is not very likely to accidentally (or purposefully) kill anyone. If the tradeoff to a slower or older CPU could somehow save lives, it may be another argument.

I also seriously doubt that there are many folks happy with an old Pentium. Boot times alone are going to drive folks nuts. Also, at least with the early Pentium series, I am not sure whether you can get anything running on it that could access the web nowadays (maybe starting Pentium 4 there might be lightweight Linux distros). Ultimately, there are things that you cannot do with an old CPU anymore.

Conversely, for the purposes outlined above (recreation, pest control, etc.) there is little difference between a single-action to a larger magazine rifle. And if lengthy shootouts are somehow part of life, moving may become more attractive at some point. 

The bigger point is that among certain conservatives in the US being somewhat irrational regarding guns has become part of their identity. The Overton window has shifted so much that reasonable gun control has become a no-go, and it is really not about the need of guns. Paradoxically, the NRA was a champion for gun safety and regulation before deciding to jump the shark  (https://time.com/4431356/nra-gun-control-history/).

 

 

 

 

 

[Steve81]

48 minutes ago, CharonY said:

That does not seem like a good comparison, a faster computer is not very likely to accidentally (or purposefully) kill anyone. If the tradeoff to a slower or older CPU could somehow save lives, it may be another argument.

Also, I seriously doubt that there are many folks happy with an old Pentium. Boot times alone are going to drive folks nuts. Also, at least with the early Pentium series, I am not sure whether you can get anything running on it that could access the web nowadays (maybe starting Pentium 4 there might be lightweight Linux distros).

 

The faster the computer, the more capable it will be of running an advanced AI as mentioned by TheVat. I suspect hobbling upload bandwidth would help mitigate the issue of distributed computing. Either way, this is a hypothetical thought experiment, not a serious plan. 

You might be surprised as to what an old Pentium IV could do with a good SSD and adequate RAM. Of course it wouldn't actually be a Pentium IV; those things were inefficient heat monsters. Utilize a modern, but intentionally slow processor of comparable performance, add an application-specific co-processor for video decoding, and it should be able to tackle most general-purpose tasks. They ran all the basic applications we run today (word processing, spreadsheets, web browsers, e-mail clients, etc.), and with the SSD to boost performance over the spinning disks of yore, the system ought to be reasonably snappy. 

As to the potential to save lives, that rather depends on the nightmare scenario one cares to envision. Personally I don't see how this would stop a potential hacker from potentially bringing down a power grid or similar, which could conceivably cost a great many lives. Even an air-gap doesn't necessarily help, as the Stuxnet virus attacking Iranian centrifuges proved. Unfortunately, we live in an age where a single bad actor with a computer and sufficient ability could cause chaos on a significant scale. +

Quote

The bigger point is that among certain conservatives in the US being somewhat irrational regarding guns has become part of their identity. The Overton window has shifted so much that reasonable gun control has become a no-go, and it is really not about the need of guns. Paradoxically, the NRA was a champion for gun safety and regulation before deciding to jump the shark  (https://time.com/4431356/nra-gun-control-history/).

I agree. The purpose of the thought experiment is to consider the opinions of the other side, as opposed to blasting them with rhetoric, which only tends to further entrench them. Yes, there are a great many nutjobs, but presumably there are a few logical conservatives left to reason with. If not, there is no real solution that I can see, other than waiting for demographic changes to run their course. 

Edited August 13, 2023 by Steve81

[toucana]

On 8/12/2023 at 4:18 PM, TheVat said:

As someone with extensive time in rural settings, I have encountered a fair number of people who still find the bolt action rifle quite sufficient.  And would view the assault style AR15 as unsuitable for a sporting hunt.  A well-aimed shot from Grandpa's rifle will bring down a mule deer more effectively than an AR15.   The rifle will shoot more precisely and will usually have a round that works on larger game, like a 30-06, while the .223 round that most AR series weapons use is not as good. (though its report is fine for scaring off cougars)  Most pests were scared off, in my and my wife's family history of ranching and farming, by banging kitchen pots together, which saves ammunition and decreases chances of a stray round sailing through your herd...or your neighbor's kitchen a half mile away.  😀

So the computer chip analogy might need work.  

I can’t help wondering how rural conservative gun-slingers would fare nowadays if they were forced to use smooth-bore flintlock muskets that had to be loaded by ramming hand-made black powder cartridges of twisted paper, wadding, and musket balls down the muzzle with a rod ?

Fanciful ? Perhaps, but that was the type of firearm that the Second Amendment was predicated on when it was originally passed in 1791. Bolt action rifles didn’t come into general use until they were adopted by the Prussian army in 1841.

[iNow]

11 minutes ago, toucana said:

that was the type of firearm that the Second Amendment was predicated on when it was originally passed in 1791.

Not according to the originalists on the US Supreme Court. 

[TheVat]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2023/ar-15-force-mass-shootings/

 

I hope the Washington Post might consider lowering the paywall on its feature today about mass shootings and the AR15, to reach a larger audience.  If you can access it, I think it may be useful in considering the relative weighting of freedoms here.  Freedom from terror and mass slaughter in public places is an important aspect of a civilized sane society.  To conservatives who feel uneasy about possible restrictions on military style assault weapons:  

Fuck.

Your.

Feelings.

[StringJunky]

I can see it. It's probably region-restricted if one can't see it. Even though it is graphic enough for me, for your average Republican hill-billy/red neck/trailer trash I don't think it's explicit enough. Consider that many younger people are decimating characters in their games in the most explicit ways possible. It's too tame.

Edited November 17, 2023 by StringJunky

[dimreepr]

Why we are publishing disturbing content from AR-15 mass shootings (msn.com)

 

[TheVat]

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Why we are publishing disturbing content from AR-15 mass shootings (msn.com)

 

This is helpful, thanks.  Sometimes emotions can cloud our judgement but sometimes emotions are needed to have real understanding of an issue.  Sometimes we need to be disturbed and yanked out of abstract ruminating.  

9 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I can see it. It's probably region-restricted if one can't see it. Even though it is graphic enough for me, for your average Republican hill-billy/red neck/trailer trash I don't think it's explicit enough. Consider that many younger people are decimating characters in their games in the most explicit ways possible. It's too tame.

Yeah, people get desensitized for sure.  I'm not sure what reaches someone in that place, short of direct experience.  

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, TheVat said:

This is helpful, thanks.  Sometimes emotions can cloud our judgement but sometimes emotions are needed to have real understanding of an issue.  Sometimes we need to be disturbed and yanked out of abstract ruminating.  

Yeah, people get desensitized for sure.  I'm not sure what reaches someone in that place, short of direct experience.  

The Post article that Dim linked does actually say they considered what can be shown.

[Photon Guy]

The way I see it, any kind of gun that the police and military have access to citizens should also have access to. So if you want to ban certain guns from citizens, ban them from the police and military too. 

[CharonY]

I am looking forward to my neighbour waking me up with their shiny new handheld mortars.

[Phi for All]

21 minutes ago, Photon Guy said:

The way I see it, any kind of gun that the police and military have access to citizens should also have access to. So if you want to ban certain guns from citizens, ban them from the police and military too. 

You must be assigning some kind of special importance to firearms here. As tools, the police need of a different version than a hunter does, or than a soldier does. 

I use tools too, but I sure wouldn't expect the experts to give up their dynamite or tunnel-borers just because they won't give me access to them. That's just crazy.

Why do you think a citizen should have access to military/police grade guns? Are you thinking they need them to protect themselves from the police and the military?

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

You must be assigning some kind of special importance to firearms here. As tools, the police need of a different version than a hunter does, or than a soldier does. 

I use tools too, but I sure wouldn't expect the experts to give up their dynamite or tunnel-borers just because they won't give me access to them. That's just crazy.

Why do you think a citizen should have access to military/police grade guns? Are you thinking they need them to protect themselves from the police and the military?

Some/a lot of your compatriots need their heads testing. Your laws are, on their own, killing all those people because.... rights. These mass murderers you have are, by and large, very poorly and not intrinsically evil. It can happen to anyone if all of the life-shit happens to fall together at the wrong time. 80 life years x 300 million US people is an awful lot of person-years for these things to happen, if the system enables them, like it does.

Edited January 29 by StringJunky

[MigL]

Com puters are specific to their use.
An old Pentium  will suffice for Net surfing, as the speed is limited by your internet connection, not computing power.
But you might want a Ryzen with 16 cores if you want to edit graphics or videos.

Similarly guns have specific purposes.
An assault rifle of low caliber has little stopping power and is almost useless for hunting game larger than a rabbit.
Its purpose is to incapacitate, as a wounded enemy combatant will tie up two others to care/carry him, while a dead enemy can be left behind.
You don't want to have wounded game run off and die somewhere you cannot find it, so assault rifles are bad for hunting.

I read statistics that 360 million Americans own 400 million guns, but 3/4 of Americans do not own guns, only 1/4 of them do.
At some point, it is simply saying " look, I have more, bigger, guns than you."
Nothing more than showing everyone that you have ( are ? ) a bigger dick.

And those insecure incels are the ones usually committing the mass killings

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, Photon Guy said:

The way I see it, any kind of gun that the police and military have access to citizens should also have access to. So if you want to ban certain guns from citizens, ban them from the police and military too. 

Yeah. sod the training and accountibility and let everyone have the best of what the police use. 

13 minutes ago, MigL said:

Com puters are specific to their use.
An old Pentium  will suffice for Net surfing, as the speed is limited by your internet connection, not computing power.
But you might want a Ryzen with 16 cores if you want to edit graphics or videos.

Similarly guns have specific purposes.
An assault rifle of low caliber has little stopping power and is almost useless for hunting game larger than a rabbit.
Its purpose is to incapacitate, as a wounded enemy combatant will tie up two others to care/carry him, while a dead enemy can be left behind.
You don't want to have wounded game run off and die somewhere you cannot find it, so assault rifles are bad for hunting.

I read statistics that 360 million Americans own 400 million guns, but 3/4 of Americans do not own guns, only 1/4 of them do.
At some point, it is simply saying " look, I have more, bigger, guns than you."
Nothing more than showing everyone that you have ( are ? ) a bigger dick.

And those insecure incels are the ones usually committing the mass killings

Didn't know that. Leave it to the experts is what I say... that's what we pay them for. From Photon Guy's post, I get the sense that the military and police are viewed as forces of oppression, rather than as extensions of the common will, geared towards civility and peace.

Edited January 29 by StringJunky

[Bufofrog]

3 hours ago, Photon Guy said:

The way I see it, any kind of gun that the police and military have access to citizens should also have access to.

The rest of the world thinks Americans are nuts, stuff like this makes think maybe they're right.

[StringJunky]

14 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

The rest of the world thinks Americans are nuts, stuff like this makes think maybe they're right.

It's what happens when they can't see the forest for the trees.

[Photon Guy]

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

You must be assigning some kind of special importance to firearms here. As tools, the police need of a different version than a hunter does, or than a soldier does. 

I use tools too, but I sure wouldn't expect the experts to give up their dynamite or tunnel-borers just because they won't give me access to them. That's just crazy.

Im not sure about the legality of dynamite but I believe anybody with the money can get a tunnel-borer. But regardless, the 2A does not cover such stuff, just like it doesn't cover drugs. Certain drugs you can have access to only if you're a licensed doctor but that otherwise are banned and that's fine because the 2A does not identify any right to access such stuff. The 2A identifies the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to keep and bear other stuff such as dynamite and tunnel-borers and certain dangerous drugs. 

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Why do you think a citizen should have access to military/police grade guns?

Because they had access to them when the Constitution, including the 2A was ratified. When the 2A which identifies the right to keep and bear arms, and that's exactly what it does as it doesn't grant the right it identifies it, muskets were the military/police grade guns back then and citizens had full access to them. Today it's semi automatic guns and in some cases full automatic guns that the police and military use so that's what citizens should have access to as those are the arms of today. The arms that are mentioned in the 2A are in reference to whatever the arms of today are. Back when the Constitution was ratified it was muskets, today it's the more advanced guns that I mentioned. Our country's founders weren't dumb, they knew weapons would get more advanced in the future. So if you want to restrict citizens to muskets as some people say the right to keep and bear arms identified by the 2A only applies to muskets, then its only proper to restrict the police and military to muskets and the kinds of guns that were used back then as well. To allow the military access to more advanced guns and not citizens is a double standard. 

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Are you thinking they need them to protect themselves from the police and the military?

That's exactly what they're needed for, or to put it more precisely, to protect themselves from the government should the government become oppressive. In the USA it's the citizens that are supposed to control the government, not the other way around. The USA was created for the people by the people. We've got many checks and balances in place but the right to keep and bear arms, as identified by the 2A, is a final check and balance. If all else fails the people can revolt against the government should the government become oppressive. 

[Phi for All]

22 minutes ago, Photon Guy said:

Im not sure about the legality of dynamite but I believe anybody with the money can get a tunnel-borer.

All dangerous tools are regulated to some extent, and their use is restricted to those who have business using them. 

26 minutes ago, Photon Guy said:

The 2A identifies the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to keep and bear other stuff such as dynamite and tunnel-borers and certain dangerous drugs. 

Because they had access to them when the Constitution, including the 2A was ratified. When the 2A which identifies the right to keep and bear arms, and that's exactly what it does as it doesn't grant the right it identifies it, muskets were the military/police grade guns back then and citizens had full access to them.

That's not a great argument. I could just as easily argue that you can have muskets because that was allowed by the Constitution, but that arms made after the document was ratified aren't covered. It's a much more sound argument than letting citizens have the latest and greatest military gear. That's insane, don't you think?

 

29 minutes ago, Photon Guy said:

That's exactly what they're needed for, or to put it more precisely, to protect themselves from the government should the government become oppressive. In the USA it's the citizens that are supposed to control the government, not the other way around. The USA was created for the people by the people. We've got many checks and balances in place but the right to keep and bear arms, as identified by the 2A, is a final check and balance. If all else fails the people can revolt against the government should the government become oppressive. 

I don't know what to say about this argument. You seem to be saying a citizen militia is what stands between us and misused military, when we've seen what the US military does to citizen militias all over the globe. Ignorant, normal people, the kind that stormed the US Capitol building in insurrection, that's the folks you want to have drones and tanks and RPGs? Which state do you vote in?

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, Photon Guy said:

We've got many checks and balances in place but the right to keep and bear arms, as identified by the 2A, is a final check and balance. If all else fails the people can revolt against the government should the government become oppressive. 

The 2nd A was written in the late 1700s, when the US relied on civilian miltias for defense.  Hence the archaic opening phrase a well regulated militia...   But the world and America changed, and we now have large professional armies with weapons that require considerable training and complex systems of command and control.   We left militias behind a couple centuries ago.  Anything a civilian could afford and operate would be like a peashooter when pitted against a modern professional army.  

All of this goes towards explaining why we have a Supreme Court which (if it's doing its job in a fair and impartial way) has to intepret vague constitutional dictums and see that they are implemented in a manner that adapts to changes in society.  That's how we were able to identify machine guns in the 1930s as a socially destructive weapon in the hands of ordinary citizens.  You may recall cities like Chicago had a wee problem with them.  

Constitutional amendments have NEVER been a blank check for doing whatever the hell you want.  They are always subject to interpretation and also to legislative restrictions.  (that's what Congress does, when it's functioning).  You may want to look up Alexander Hamilton, writing on why constitutional provisions are necessarily vague.

[iNow]

6 hours ago, MigL said:

I read statistics that 360 million Americans own 400 million guns, but 3/4 of Americans do not own guns, only 1/4 of them do.

That’s weird since including babies there are only about 330M Americans alive and that’s higher now than at any time across history. 

3 hours ago, Photon Guy said:

To allow the military access to more advanced guns and not citizens is a double standard

Correct. It is. The standard of the military is killing enemies. The standard for citizens is NOT killing their neighbors. 

3 hours ago, Photon Guy said:

If all else fails the people can revolt against the government should the government become oppressive. 

Yeah. Those Blackhawk helicopters with their hellfire missiles will become impotent against uncle Jim Bob and his AR

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

All of this goes towards explaining why we have a Supreme Court which (if it's doing its job in a fair and impartial way)

Sadly, this bedrock has been blasted and fracked for reasons of avarice and grift and earthquakes are spreading across the justice system like ripples through a scummy pond. 

[MigL]

37 minutes ago, iNow said:

That’s weird ...

Maybe I got it confused with Canada's 36 million.
I'm over 65 now; my mind is starting to go.
( or, maybe your immigration system/laws need to change )

4 hours ago, Photon Guy said:

Because they had access to them when the Constitution, including the 2A was ratified. When the 2A which identifies the right to keep and bear arms, and that's exactly what it does as it doesn't grant the right it identifies it, muskets were the military/police grade guns back then and citizens had full access to them.

At the time that was the definition of 'arms'.

Today 'arms' means automatic assault weapons, as well as turbine engined tanks, stealthy fighter jets, aircraft carriers the size of a town, and chemical/biological/ thermonuclear weapons.

Do you think that because the American armed forces have them, any rich individual should have access to them also ?
( hate to imagine what that goofball, E Musk, would do with an aircraft carrier )

Edited January 30 by MigL