Comment by beachy | Hacker News Reader

Comment by beachy | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The slippery slope/edge case arguments. These things seem to be so complex in America. They're not.

Can you loan a rifle to a buddy for a hunting weekend? Yes, as long as your buddy has his gun licence. Otherwise a hard no, as there's no proof your buddy has a damn clue about gun safety. And of course you, a licenced gun owner, can supervise your buddy while he shoots if he doesn't have a licence. Same for teaching your kids to shoot safely.

Can that hunting rifle be an AR-15? No. Military assault rifles are not needed for hunting. You can use a bolt action rifle, or even a low powered semi-auto, .22. If you have special requirements - like hunting feral hogs from a helicopter - then you can apply for a special class of licence that allows you to possess said weapons, and use them for said purpose.

Are there red flag rules? Obviously! Why would you let a disturbed individual have a lethal weapon?

Can people still have their guns? Yes! But they must be stored in a secure gun safe, and some weapons (e.g pistols/concealable weapons), due to the risks they present, must be treated separately. You certainly can't carry your gun on your shoulder into the supermarket.

And so it goes. The solutions to America's gun problem are obvious - from the outside.

But you just completely ignored what I wrote, which was that a policy's name may be viewed differently than that policy's implementation. And then you said there's no objections to red flag laws! Did you even read my comment?

But calling an AR-15 a "military assault rifle" is probably enough evidence that you don't know what you're talking about, anyways. ('Assault Rifle' is a term of art and the vast vast majority of AR-15s do not qualify - the legal ones that do qualify have literally never been used in violent crimes in the US, because they are worth tens of thousands of dollars and machine guns (a superset of assault rifles) have had universal background checks since the 1920s)

> ('Assault Rifle' is a term of art

It is, but it actually has two different meanings. There is what you mean by it (the traditional military definition) and then there is “assault rifle”=“rifle which was legally classified as an assault weapon under the 1994-2004 US Federal Assault Weapons Ban”-a civilian AR-15 is (generally) not an “assault rifle” in the first sense, but it is in the second. Now, you can argue the second is an abuse of language - but once a usage becomes supported by US federal law (even if since expired), that becomes an ipso facto legitimate definition, and it would be better to acknowledge people who use that definition as doing so than lecture them that they don’t know what they are talking about (maybe they don’t, but when you don’t acknowledge the different definition of the term which they are actually using, it doesn’t make you sound like you do either)

The second one is an "Assault Weapon", not Rifle. This is why it was called the Assault Weapons Ban.

See [0], "a United States federal law which included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms that were defined as assault weapons".

"The Act prohibited the manufacture, transfer, or possession of "semiautomatic assault weapons," as defined by the Act."

0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

People use the term "assault rifle" to mean "assault weapon rifles". It is a very widespread usage, including by politicians and the news media. It is also a very logical usage – it is simply shortening the phrase by dropping "weapon", which is kind of duplicative given it includes "rifle". Yes, this contradicts with the older military usage of the term "assault rifle" – but different people use words in different ways, language evolves, and insisting other people are wrong for using words differently from how you do is just ignorant linguistic prescriptivism.

Sometimes, specific terms matter. Federal law is one of those times. Especially gun law, because getting it wrong means the ATF shoots your dog and you go to club fed.

The complexity isn't that it's hard to write out a set of gun regulations. The complexity is that many Americans support only a subset of the measures you're describing. So when universal background checks (for example) come up for a vote, a lot of people who support them in principle raise concerns that they'll be seen as a backdoor for creating a gun licensing program, and thus they get a lot less popular support than you'd expect from polling data.

Why would you not require a licence to own and operate a lethal weapon?

Because trusting the government to have the power to determine who gets to defend themselves means that African Americans in the post-civil-war south, and Jews in 1930s Germany, don't get to defend themselves.

People keep saying that the US is on the verge of being a fascist white supremacist state - why do you want to give that state the right to choose who gets guns?

Edit: and in more immediately practical consequences, because gun-hostile governments have a history of publicly leaking the list of people who own guns.

Moat countries require a license to drive cars. A white supremacist nation can certainly use that as excuse to take away the livelihood from certain classes of people. Is this a reason for not enforcing the need to have a driving license? (You do have driving licenses in the US right? I'm often surprised about the amount of things that seem universal and that are not a thing in the united states')

You do not in fact need a driver's license to purchase/own/operate a motor vehicle in the USA - only to use public roads. (And that's just talking about "by law" - "in practice" people drive with no license or with a suspended license far too often here)

Don't ask me! I think we should. My point is just that, from what I can tell, the problems with gun regulation in America have a lot more to do with what the public is willing to support than some kind of complication or corruption making it hard to pass laws the public wants.

The argument is usually that a license mechanism involves a registry and that the government having a list of every gun owner will lead to them taking citizens guns away or otherwise further restrictions.

And such lists have very often led to further restrictions / confiscation in other countries, so it's not exactly a baseless fear.

Like it or not, owning and operating a firearm is guaranteed by the constitution. There are certain issues with requiring licenses for a constitutional right which include cost and location, which have cropped up with the voter I.D. laws and the voter station issues, where specific ballot pickups aren't placed in poorer lacales and certain districts are trying to get rid of mail in voting, making it a financial burden on poor voters to exercise their constitutional right.

I know a lot of people say that licensing makes a lot of sense, and on the face of it, of course I agree. But if you look deeper you can see how it becomes a bridge to making a constitutional right to something for only English speaking, upper middle class or rich people (generally white or Asian demographically) people.

I don't have an issue with competency tests, but what is the bar and for what purpose? I only hunt and to get a hunting license I had to take a hunting class which includes a gun safety pertion. Does that count? Also, I'm the son of a Vietnam vet and have literally been shooting since I was 7 years old. I understand defensive shooting and can shoot revolvers and semi auto pistols, but I don't particularly care for pistol shooting. Do I also have to get certified for defensive shooting separately for a different class of gun? What's the definition? I can hunt with semi autos. AR-15's are a style of rifle, but functionally they're just a semi-auto with a pistol grip. They're fine to hunt with and you can get them chambered in a lot of rounds. If I get everything the same but without the pistol grip, can I have it not qualified as an AR-15 and not have to license it as such? Do we care about semi auto shotguns? They seem to miss a lot of the press.

But then we have to talk about the American government's history if misusing the information that it has been provided. Its history of withholding pertinent information to its citizenry about "liberated" confidential information. PRIZM was leaked and not only is it still being used, but no one has been prosecuted and the people who published the leaked information are being prosecuted. This was information that wasn't given to the government but was the government illegally obtaining information... what happens when information is given for one purpose and then is decided to be used for another. It's reasons like this that the "slippery slope" argument get trotted out (even though, like me, I think most people are for some more restrictions... why NOT a three day waiting period or a background check- which happen in most gun shop purchases).

Many of the states right now don't have a requirement for having your guns to be registered. How do we move forward with that? Are those guns now just illegal, is there a grace period or do all guns going forward have to be registered or are we going to do a "buy back" program for all unregistered guns, where the government buys back your unregistered gun far below a reasonable price before it becomes illegal?

America, as it is, is 50 states with 50 sets of gun laws and -to make it worse - 50 sets of definitions of what each classification of a gun is. Not every state even defines an assault rifle the same. I think only 3 or 4 define it the same, not to mention the federal definitions. Top to bottom, the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, and so we don't even know who would do the licensing... state or federal. And, even if they could figure that out, there's a very good chance it would get knocked out by the Supreme Court on multiple grounds... not the least of which is unlawful discrimination.

I say this like I'm anti all control, and I don't mean to be. I have a concealed carry, even though I don't. I don't really have a problem with licensing, per se. The concealed carry saves with hassle if I take rifles to the range and they're in a bag and I have a hand gun in there or something. Plus, it just doesn't bother me. I just want to let you know, there are things to think about and A LOT of people who don't shoot and have never shot wouldn't think about. It's never just that simple.

Thanks for your very considered reply. Got my licence over 30 years ago, and just to share my perspective after seeing many changes over the years:

> I know a lot of people say that licensing makes a lot of sense, and on the face of it, of course I agree. But if you look deeper you can see how it becomes a bridge to making a constitutional right to something for only English speaking, upper middle class or rich people (generally white or Asian demographically) people.

Not sure why it would be any different from a car licence?

> I don't have an issue with competency tests, but what is the bar and for what purpose? I only hunt and to get a hunting license I had to take a hunting class which includes a gun safety pertion. Does that count? Also, I'm the son of a Vietnam vet and have literally been shooting since I was 7 years old. I understand defensive shooting and can shoot revolvers and semi auto pistols, but I don't particularly care for pistol shooting. Do I also have to get certified for defensive shooting separately for a different class of gun? What's the definition? I can hunt with semi autos. AR-15's are a style of rifle, but functionally they're just a semi-auto with a pistol grip. They're fine to hunt with and you can get them chambered in a lot of rounds. If I get everything the same but without the pistol grip, can I have it not qualified as an AR-15 and not have to license it as such? Do we care about semi auto shotguns? They seem to miss a lot of the press.

I'll fall back on how it works in my country, where we have no guaranteed right of self-defense. Instead owning a gun is a privilege and you must prove you are capable of owning one responsibly. As such, there aren't a whole heap of different usages. The basic licence test covers hunting, target shooting, safe storage etc. and all the common things you would need a gun for. I can agree if you were allowed to carry a pistol for self-defense that would probably require a different licence class due to the increased risk and involvement of other people.

> Many of the states right now don't have a requirement for having your guns to be registered. How do we move forward with that? Are those guns now just illegal, is there a grace period or do all guns going forward have to be registered or are we going to do a "buy back" program for all unregistered guns, where the government buys back your unregistered gun far below a reasonable price before it becomes illegal?

Buybacks have been used in UK, NZ and Australia (at least) and have worked well, despite the sums of money involved. As far as I know they've used something like fair market value, though of course there have been complaints, particularly from people with e.g. rare models that are hard to value.

> America, as it is, is 50 states with 50 sets of gun laws and -to make it worse - 50 sets of definitions of what each classification of a gun is. Not every state even defines an assault rifle the same. I think only 3 or 4 define it the same, not to mention the federal definitions. Top to bottom, the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, and so we don't even know who would do the licensing... state or federal. And, even if they could figure that out, there's a very good chance it would get knocked out by the Supreme Court on multiple grounds... not the least of which is unlawful discrimination.

Yeah, I appreciate the problems. There are always people who love to look for loopholes, e.g. what about an AR-15 chambered for .22? I would say the test case is simply how dangerous is the weapon. Can it be used to kill many people very quickly? A AR-15 in 5.56 is far more dangerous that in .22. A semi-auto is more dangerous than a bolt action. A gun with a magazine of 30 bullets is more dangerous that one with 8. etc. etc. Not easy decisions, but a framework of danger to the community can be used to identify weapons that should have more restrictions.

I say this like I'm anti all control, and I don't mean to be. I have a concealed carry, even though I don't. I don't really have a problem with licensing, per se. The concealed carry saves with hassle if I take rifles to the range and they're in a bag and I have a hand gun in there or something. Plus, it just doesn't bother me. I just want to let you know, there are things to think about and A LOT of people who don't shoot and have never shot wouldn't think about. It's never just that simple.

Appreciate your thoughts.

I will say this about the car license argument... A car license is not a right. It isn't codified in the constitution as something we are guaranteed, like voting. That brings me to stories like this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a...

I don't view car licenses and the right to own a firearm on the same fundamental level, neither do many/most Americans. It has to do with what we view as our fundamental rights vs. what other countries of the world view as their rights. We feel the same way about speech, which isn't the same in a lot of countries, for better or worse. Both of these fundamental rights and the viewpoints they bring do cut both ways in action and attitude. I can see that.

The majority of dissent in America in views on guns is the urban population vs. the rural population (this is actually the similar in Canada, if you look at the difference in views on hunting and gun ownership, just like in America - even though their gun violence is a fraction of ours).

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/10/rural-and-u...

A knife is a lethal weapon. And before you go into how much easier it is to kill someone with an AR15, remember that more people are killed with knives than AR15's.

>> Can that hunting rifle be an AR-15? No. Military assault rifles are not needed for hunting. You can use a bolt action rifle, or even a low powered semi-auto, .22.

I very much agree with with the paragraph before this one. However. This one is why many people just stop listening. The one's you are trying to persuade are gun owners, and this reads as though you did a quick google search for hunting guns and maybe shot a gun once at a range. (not saying thats how it is)

I'll try to unpack this. The statement is conflating looks, cartridge action/mechanism (bolt-action), semi-auto describes the bullet firing mechanism (the gun only fires one round per trigger pull - fully auto will continue to fire as long as the trigger is depressed), and caliber (.22) which is different from cartridge (ex .22LR)

Military assault rifles != AR-15 (I believe many people are confusing what a gun looks like and what it actually does)

> The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges." [1]

Bolt-action describes a large range of guns. To be honest, I have always wanted a military sniper rifle, just don't have a use for it, except to maybe look pretty on the wall and target practice. Something like [2]

The .22. I love this gun. It is one of the best guns to learn on. It was the gun I learn to load, shoot, dismantle and clean when I was 4 y/o. It's extremely user friendly. I really hope you don't think a .22 should be used for hunting anything other than rabbits or the like. Anyone that shoots a .22 knows it wont leave big holes, but that you can still kill larger things - if you want to be cruel. The .22 is notorious for bouncing and ricocheting, including off bone and tearing up and shattering the insides. .22s are also easier to fire than larger calibers with a heavier recoil that greatly diminishes accuracy. An untrained shooter with be able to handle a .22 far more accurately, with a greater rate of fire, than the types of "AR-15" guns you are thinking of.

People are scared of large bullet-holes and think AR-15s look like it will leave large holes, so let's ban them. I think many people that actually shoot guns would pick being shot with a gun that quickly blows a large hole through them and it ends there - than by a .22 that will most likely not exit. Instead, it will ricochet shattering bones with the shards ripping through other organs as they slowly, painfully bleed to death from the inside, leaving surgeons helpless to fix that many problems in time.

For completeness, by saying you are okay with a low powered semi-auto .22 (such as a .22 Long Rifle), that is approving of:

American-80 submachine gun [3] Colt M4 .22LR [4]

There are many more AR-15 style gun in .22 caliber

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle#Definition

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_MSR

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-180

[4] https://waltherarmsusa.com/walther-colt-m4-ops-22lr-carbine-...

Appreciate your thoughts and I will try and give my perspective, having been a responsible gun owner/user for many years.

> I'll try to unpack this. The statement is conflating looks, cartridge action/mechanism (bolt-action), semi-auto describes the bullet firing mechanism (the gun only fires one round per trigger pull - fully auto will continue to fire as long as the trigger is depressed), and caliber (.22) which is different from cartridge (ex .22LR) [..]

To stay away from legalistic arguments I agree and appreciate the problems of categorising firearms. I would say the test case is how dangerous is the weapon - can it be used to kill many people very quickly?

An AR-15 in 5.56 is far more dangerous than a .22.

A semi-auto is far more dangerous than a bolt action.

A gun with a magazine of 30 bullets is more dangerous that one with 8.

A semi-auto shotgun is somewhat more dangerous than a pump action which is far more dangerous than an over and under.

A pistol is far more dangerous than a rifle (can be concealed).

Agree these are not simple checkbox decisions, but a framework of danger to the community can be used to identify weapons that should have more restrictions.

> The .22. I love this gun. It is one of the best guns to learn on. It was the gun I learn to load, shoot, dismantle and clean when I was 4 y/o. It's extremely user friendly. I really hope you don't think a .22 should be used for hunting anything other than rabbits or the like.

Agreed, and yes .22 is not suitable for shooting anything too large. Above that you will need the right caliber, e.g. we use .308 often over here for pigs, deer etc. But if you need a semi-auto to hunt deer you are doing something wrong - a bolt action is enough.

> An untrained shooter with be able to handle a .22 far more accurately, with a greater rate of fire, than the types of "AR-15" guns you are thinking of.

It's hard to respond to this, you could be right? But if some deranged individual breaks into my place of work with a gun I personally would much rather they had a .22 than a .308 or 5.56. Overwhelming them with force with 2 or 3 people I feel would be far more feasible even if you take some bullets in the act.

> People are scared of large bullet-holes and think AR-15s look like it will leave large holes, so let's ban them. I think many people that actually shoot guns would pick being shot with a gun that quickly blows a large hole through them and it ends there - than by a .22 that will most likely not exit. Instead, it will ricochet shattering bones with the shards ripping through other organs as they slowly, painfully bleed to death from the inside, leaving surgeons helpless to fix that many problems in time.

I thinks it's uncontroversial that an AR-15 in 5.56 is far more deadly than one in .22.

> For completeness, by saying you are okay with a low powered semi-auto .22 (such as a .22 Long Rifle), that is approving of: American-80 submachine gun [3] Colt M4 .22LR [4]

Yes, that looks a zany and fun little weapon and personally I think it is OK and I would love to shoot one. I don't see any difference between any of the form factors for .22 semi-auto (unless it's very small and allows concealment).

>> But if some deranged individual breaks into my place of work with a gun I personally would much rather they had a .22 than a .308 or 5.56. Overwhelming them with force with 2 or 3 people I feel would be far more feasible even if you take some bullets in the act.

>> I thinks it's uncontroversial that an AR-15 in 5.56 is far more deadly than one in .22.

I am not so sure I would agree. Two reasons; splitting the assertion. One is that many of the people calling for AR-15 bans have no idea that there is a difference in bullet sizes, or if they have an idea that there is, they dont understand what it means and default to - AR-15 == bad.

The other is, I can fire off more round from a 22 rifle and 22 magnum faster with better accuracy than I can an AR-15 style rifle in 5.56 or a .45 (own most of the kinds of guns I talk about). If I slow down on the 5.56 or the 45, I have better accuracy. I have also been shooting for multiple decades, mostly against moving (mostly non-living things) and non-moving objects . Which leads into:

>> I would say the test case is how dangerous is the weapon - can it be used to kill many people very quickly?

Every time I read about these shooters, it is absolutely baffling me that they hit so few people. The only thing that makes sense is that they miss a lot - and from experience, I would guess it is because their anger makes them recklessly-wantonly firing off shoots from a gun they can not handle - put a 22 in their hands and I would bet my arsenal that they hit and kill more people. I would even put a 20g shotgun at being a better(worse) weapon than an 5.56 and maybe even tied with a 22 in terms of an untrained shooter hitting and killing their target. But not a 10g or 12g. Of course all of this changes depending on the shooters experience - and then the experienced shooters preference, but any gun in their hands will be more deadly.

I can not see a world where someone who just picked up a real gun will be able to hit more of their moving targets with something that kicks higher than a 22. I would rather take my chances of being a moving target they have trouble hitting over getting a 22 breaking apart inside of me. And if I get hit with a larger slug, I have a better chance of it exiting, cleanly killing me or worst case, being lodged inside but at least staying intact and having a chance to be patched up.

>> But if you need a semi-auto to hunt deer you are doing something wrong - a bolt action is enough.

Just for fun, I prefer the American classic lever-action 30-30. But growing up in the south where cowboy boots and hats are still an everyday thing, not a fashion statement - so I may be biased. Though you wont find me wearing either, I prefer urban areas most of the year and like to blend into the background.

I guess my point is focusing on guns will lead to nowhere, too many varying cases - but focusing on keeping guns away from violent and unstable people is a good place to find common ground. I am a huge advocate of gun safety and gun licenses (registries are another issue, and I don't like them because they can be abused too much for my taste. A licenses does not mean you have a gun, just that you can operate them safely, and I am all for that.) Too many people know nothing about guns for me to be okay with them broadly bans gun types without specifically.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com