<abbr title="Yet Another <abbr title="Gun Wars 2">GW2</abbr> Topic">YAGT</abbr>
-
-
@mott555 said:
roughly ~200 annual accidental gun deaths
[citation needed]
From the other thread:
https://what.thedailywtf.com/t/the-horror-of-uncoordinated-movement/51602/118?u=lorne_katesCDC in 2013 has ~500 "accidental" gun deaths per year. But from the best I can tell, they would rate people shooting other people "assault", while accidental would be "idiot looking down barrel to see if it's clear" deaths.
-
My family is heavily involved in the medical field, and they all say that most firearm incidents they see tend to be accidental fuckups.
-
Do you think it would make sense to have a more formal, standard requirement for training prior to being allowed a gun?
Let me turn that around: if someone were to get your hypothetical license, should he, like a driver's license, be able to carry anywhere he wants in all 50 states?
-
Let me turn that around: if someone were to get your hypothetical license, should he, like a driver's license, be able to carry anywhere he wants in all 50 states?
As long as all 50 states have the same high standard of licensing, then yes. If the test is federally standardized, then there shouldn't matter which state you get it from.
I have no idea how that fits in with a state's right to ban or further restrict guns (presumably NYC is going to be tougher than Outback, MI).
-
Let me turn that around: if someone were to get your hypothetical license, should he, like a driver's license, be able to carry anywhere he wants in all 50 states?
Not sure - I'm not American and have little or no idea how your united states hang together.
I guess I was mostly trying to see how you guys (the active gun owners in this thread) felt about the hypothetical idea of licensing like this.
-
I guess I was mostly trying to see how you guys (the active gun owners in this thread) felt about the hypothetical idea of licensing like this.
Normally, in the US, when gun-grabbers talk about a license for guns, they compare it to a DL, but actually want it to be deeply restrictive. The idea of making it actually work like a DL usually causes them to have an apoplexy.
-
My family is heavily involved in the medical field, and they all say that most firearm incidents they see tend to be accidental fuckups.
Tell us more about your anecdata.
-
Did I say it was data? Did I say "Their observations prove that 64.25% of gun discharges resulting in death or injury are accidental"? Hrm. Nope, I didn't.
But since you love data, here's some from 1991. 24 and a half years later, and still no real improvements have been made to gun safety.
-
Did I say it was data?
It was in response to a post about data, so it's implied.
If your family is heavily involved in the medical field, can you ask them how they decide on classifying something with an ICD code for "Accidental injury by firearm"
http://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/V00-Y99/W20-W49/W32-/W32Vs. Assault by Firearm:
http://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/V00-Y99/X92-Y09/X93-/X93
http://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/V00-Y99/X92-Y09/X93-/X94
http://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/V00-Y99/X92-Y09/X93-/X95The ~500 "accidental" gun deaths per year are classified as the former, "assault" the latter. I'm curious as to what actually falls into which category, especially given some of the scenarios we talked about before:
- Toddler takes gun out from purse, shoots mother "by accident", but she was still "assaulted" by the gun.
- Young child finds unlocked gun, shoots little brother. Again, "by accident", but small brother was still "assaulted" by gun
In other words, are 'accidents' only when it's a truly accidental self-inflicted gun shot, or a back-fire, or muzzle burn, or something like that? Is someone accidentally, or through mishandling, shooting another person an accident or an assault, as far as those medical classifications go?
-
But since you love data, here's some from 1991. 24 and a half years later, and still no real improvements have been made to gun safety.
Actually, it's me that loves data.
The report says that in 1991, there were ~1900 "accidental" deaths, including children, from firearm accidents. It claims that with additional safety decides (trigger lock and loaded indicators), that number can be dropped be 1/3-- so only 1000 accidental deaths. The 2013 report from the CDC lists current accidental deaths at 500.
Now, the report doesn't say how they came to that number, or what classifications it used for accidental. So we can conclude one of a few things:
-
The 1991 report mis-classified "accidental". They used a different criteria, either accidentally, on purpose, or because the classifications have changed between 1991 and 2013, or the GOA and CDC use different classification systems. In any case, without further analysis and balancing, this is apples to oranges, and can't be used for any conclusions.
-
The 1991 report and 2013 report DO use the same metrics for "accidental". In that case, accidental deaths have gone down TWICE the amount of that the GOA report expected. Deaths went down by 2/3, instead of 1/3. This can either be because their safety suggestions were accepted (though I seem to recall trigger locks and loaded indicators not being standard), OR a different and more efficient safety mechanism is in place. (Education? Gun safes? Better medical care resulting in fewer deaths?). Too many variables to process, and so the report can't be relied on for any conclusion.
-
-
If the mental illness standards for gun ownership are to be increased, then please guarantee that [political abuse of psychiatry][1] won't occur, kthxbai.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry
-
Do you think it would make sense to have a more formal, standard requirement for training prior to being allowed a gun? Something along the lines of the requirement to drive a car.
It doesn't work for driving either, at least not in the way that the "one is too many" crowd wants it to work. You can't fix stupid.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
It claims that with additional safety decides (trigger lock and loaded indicators), that number can be dropped be 1/3-- so only 1000 accidental deaths.
This is probably not the case. Modern guns have a lot more passive safety devices compared to '91 to make them drop-safe and much less likely to suffer a mechanical failure leading to a discharge, but the popularity of Glock has actually lead to a decrease in manually-switched safety devices.
@Lorne_Kates said:
(though I seem to recall trigger locks and loaded indicators not being standard)
Trigger locks depend on the state. Loaded chamber indicators were rare, but not particularly unusual a few years ago and were usually designed to make California and Massachusetts-compliant handguns. However, those two states have since gone full-retard (firing pin microstamping, at least for Cali) and firearms manufacturers don't even attempt compliance anymore, preferring to actually dump those markets instead. As a result, I don't know of any new designs which use loaded chamber indicators now.
-
-
The idea is all firearms (or maybe just handguns? Not sure) sold in California need to have a unique serial number engraved on the tip of the firing pin, so during firing it will leave a matching imprint on the primers. Any spent casing can be matched up with the firearm that fired it. In practice, it's not feasible to actually manufacture this, and anyone wanting to get around it could remove the engraving with a file in about a minute. Even normal firing pin wear would pretty quickly remove the engraving.
-
Short version- The cost of licensing, implementing, and testing firing pin microstamping is claimed to outweigh the economic benefits of selling in California.
Feel free to claim the manufactures are exaggerating costs, or that legislators real goal was a de facto ban by making it economically unfeasible to meet their requirements. You wouldn't be the first, either way.
-
Aren't firing pins a consumable?
Were they planning on registering small metal pins?
-
Aren't firing pins a consumable?
Not really. They do wear some, but I have 30+ year old firearms that have their original firing pin.
But, attempting to engrave a long serial number on the end of a firing pin that is (for the 1911 pistols) .068-.093" in diameter. Not to mention that, as @mott555 mentioned, even if it were possible it would only take the slightest touch with a file to remove such a serial number and that it would definitely erode within a few hundred rounds.
-
Oh, and revolvers don't drop their rounds unless you reload, so they would not be left at a crime scene, and there are bags that you can attach to firearms to catch spent casings that would also negate any advantage that it would have.
And, good luck getting the black market to comply with such regulations.
-
-
Aren't firing pins a consumable?
Not really. They do wear out, but usually you have other problems before the firing pin is a concern. However, they do wear enough that the sharp edges of the engraving won't last. The square edges some new firing pins have don't last long.
If you're a high-volume match shooter who wears out a barrel every season, it could be a concern though. And suddenly you can't use $5 mass-produced firing pins anymore, now you've got to special-order one, and I assume it has to have the same serial number. Presumably that cost wouldn't be much of a hindrance to a high-volume match shooter who buys a new $1000 barrel each year anyway.
-
@Polygeekery said:
Not really. They do wear some,
TIL. But are they trivial to swap out?
Depends on the model. More modular designs like any ArmaLite design, it takes about a minute. Something like my 80-year-old Savage 99? Yeah, not a chance in hell of getting that thing apart. Even gunsmiths refuse to disassemble those...
-
TIL. But are they trivial to swap out?
Very. Anyone who shoots also cleans their firearms. That involves disassembly and cleaning of the bolt and firing pin. On my SKS, if you were here and wanted to hold just the firing pin in your hand, I could hand it to you in less than 60 seconds without even rushing. One pin swivels up and out of the way, then you pull it out and pop the top of the receiver off, pull out the bolt and it basically falls in two and the firing pin comes out. For a Glock firearm, probably 60 seconds for that also.
There are a few bolt actions that might take a few minutes to get to. But, firearms are designed to be cleaned, so they are easy to strip down.
-
Very. Anyone who shoots also cleans their firearms.
Ah. That is what I thought I knew.
As usual, California = ridiculous.
-
Something like my 80-year-old Savage 99? Yeah, not a chance in hell of getting that thing apart. Even gunsmiths refuse to disassemble those...
There is an exception to every rule.
But, I cannot think of a firearm from the past 30 years that takes more than a couple of minutes to get to the firing pin. Even lever actions disassemble pretty easily. Not as easy as say, a Glock or 1911, but still pretty trivial.
Once you get down to that point, a pass with a file would take care of that number instantly without impairing its ability to fire.
-
It's a good example for both sides though.
It's a rule that would cost a lot to implement and not actually have any affect on murder rates, let alone suicide or accidental deaths- You just want to ban our guns!
Or it's just engraving a serial number that you can't even see, how can this possibly infringe on your so-called right to own a firearm- You must want kids dead!
-
But are they trivial to swap out?
1911-style pistol, stripped down to the smallest parts and completely disassembled, including the firing pin, in six minutes and 30 seconds. That is without rushing, and while explaining what he is doing.
-
1911-style pistol, stripped down to the smallest parts and completely disassembled, including the firing pin, in six minutes and 30 seconds. That is without rushing, and while explaining what he is doing.
@ijij: Note that this is well beyond your typical field strip or cleaning. A field strip is generally sufficient to get at the firing pin and would take someone familiar with the firearm much less time.
-
Note that this is well beyond your typical field strip or cleaning. A field strip is generally sufficient to get at the firing pin and would take someone familiar with the firearm much less time.
Figured. Since I just happen to have zero hands-on experience beyond a .22 starters pistol... figured I'd actually ask to be sure instead of simply assume...
(which raises the question of what I'm doing in this place...
)
-
Note that this is well beyond your typical field strip or cleaning. A field strip is generally sufficient to get at the firing pin and would take someone familiar with the firearm much less time.
True, I thought I had said as much, but looking back on it I didn't.
But, it does illustrate just how easy it is to swap or modify virtually any part on modern firearms (considering that particular firearm was designed in 1911...).
Also of note, truly modern firearms like the Glock, you can have the slide off of them in literally seconds. Pull the slide back a very small amount and pull the lock down and the slide comes right off. After that, all it takes is an awl or something sharp and you can have the firing pin out in seconds.. Well under a minute to remove the firing pin. <30 seconds without a rush.
-
(which raises the question of what I'm doing in this place...
)You are asking questions and becoming informed, instead of going all moral panic without being informed. ;)
-
There is an exception to every rule.
http://1.media.dorkly.cvcdn.com/50/27/0d41808f60af8871fa122b3b0f37ab1b.gif
-
You are asking questions and becoming informed, instead of going all moral panic without being informed.
At TDWTF?
Gibberish.
The only "moral panic" I have is the shock that California can somehow get out of bed in the morning and manage to get dressed by itself.
Oh, wait... I'm being species-ist and able-ist with that comment.
-
Great, we have a budding Jeff on our hands. Soon he'll only reply with gifcats and snide remarks.
-
Great, we have a budding Jeff on our hands. Soon he'll only reply with gifcats and snide remarks.
Budding? He was full-Jeff from the get-go.
You never go full-Jeff.
-
Soon he'll only reply with gifcats and snide remarks.
I mean, at least a third of what I've said on this forum has been comprised, in some part, of snide remarks.
-
As a general rule, people can flame each other in a thread all they want. But, when you let that escape that thread, it is frowned upon.
It happens, on occasion. But still not a good idea.
And yes, I have been guilty of it. Once the flames die down, it even becomes a good-natured ribbing. Like when I make remarks to @boomzilla about omniscience. ;)
-
You never go full-Jeff.
Hey, man, Yellowcard! Because there's #nogoodway to use the J-word.
-
I saw that campaign a while back, and while I get the sentiment, it just goes to show that speaking in absolutes is idiotic.
-
As a result, I don't know of any new designs which use loaded chamber indicators now.
Define "new". I think the Ruger Mk III has an LCI. Having done the tooling changes to support that, they probably won't want to go and undo the change.
http://monderno.com/monderno/loaded-chamber-indicators-are-worthless/ links to a review of a recent pistol with an LCI; he makes a good point about their value (which people are free to disagree with, of course.)
At least one pistol with an LCI had reports that the design was defective such that if the gun were dropped on the LCI with a round in the chamber, it would fire. Probably a .22, for which an LCI would be a really dumb thing.
-
They do wear out, but usually you have other problems before the firing pin is a concern.
Bear in mind--not that this is something the average person can probably do--if you have access to a lathe, you can fashion an AR-15 firing pin from a nail, which is another problem with the idea of microstamping.
-
Define "new". I think the Ruger Mk III has an LCI. Having done the tooling changes to support that, they probably won't want to go and undo the change.
My original Ruger LC9 (2010? Something like that) has one, however the newer LC9s and LC9s Pro removed it. I thought I've seen older SR9's having it as well, but not the new ones.
It doesn't get in the way of anything, but I've literally never looked at it. The chamber/slide fit is such that you can actually see part of the cartridge if the chamber is loaded so that's what I go by.
-
removed
Ok. Just surprised me, because I assume it requires a tooling change.
The chamber/slide fit is such that you can actually see part of the cartridge if the chamber is loaded
Interesting--the one gun with an LCI I saw had a strip of red-painted metal that stuck out slightly behind the ejection port. Seemed pretty ugly to me.
-
Interesting--the one gun with an LCI I saw had a strip of red-painted metal that stuck out slightly behind the ejection port. Seemed pretty ugly to me.
That's basically what it is. The red paint rubbed off from EDC pretty quickly and now it looks like a weird rear sight.
Ok. Just surprised me, because I assume it requires a tooling change.
Probably made it cheaper to manufacture. The LCI adds a slot to the top of the slide, and some kind of hinge and retention system for the indicator. Otherwise the slide is visually identical.
-
For those who think that the NRA is all about "MOAR GUNS! GUNS FOR EVERYONE!", you couldn't be more wrong. I didn't post this earlier because I wanted to get some sources to back myself up, and I was a little busy with other things.
Anyway, the NRA is about responsible gun ownership. Unlike anti-gun groups, the NRA has actually sponsored legislation that supports mental health screenings:
NRA-ILA | Mental Health and Firearms
Since 1966, the National Rifle Association has urged the federal government to address the problem of mental illness and violence. As we noted then, “the time is at hand to seek means by which society can identify, treat and temporarily isolate such individuals,” because “elimination of the...
And they are currently supporting another bill along those lines:
The NRA isn't completely opposed to gun control laws, they are simply opposed to unreasonable gun control laws.
-
Right; that explains the famous, "COLD DEAD FINGERS!" speech. The NRA is not at all full of crazy people who think the government's going to take their guns, it just happened to have a leader for decades who just happened to be a crazy person who thought the government was going to take his guns and he just happened to communicate that personal opinion at hundreds of official NRA functions. Plausible.
The NRA supports the mental health bill because it hires expensive PR people to recommend it do things like that. The people most in need of mental health treatments are the average Joe-on-the-street NRA members.
I mean if you're going to join a club and pay dues to fight against hypothetical things that don't exist, you might as well join the SCA. At least then you'd get to do boffer-sword fights.
-
Because it's not possible that they could have multiple messages. You're also to dumb to see that the mental health bill is not at all contradictory with opposing the gun grabbers.
-
You're also to dumb to see that the mental health bill is not at all contradictory with opposing the gun grabbers.
YOU STILL DO NOT GET THE POINT.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GUN GRABBERS.
YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST MISTS AND FAERIES! THIS IS EXACTLY WHY I HATE THE NRA SO MUCH, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO TALK ABOUT AN NRA MEMBER ABOUT ANYTHING WITHOUT THEM BRINGING UP A CONSPIRACY THEORY!!!
Now I am finally and at long last going to mute this thread.
-
True, there are no gun grabbers on the US. But plenty of people who want it to happen. I'm not sure why you think differently.
Do you also think there aren't people who want health care to be taken over by the government?
Examples of "Retard" in a Sentence | YourDictionary.com
NRA Supports John Cornyn's New Mental Health Bill
