It's not that you can't write a legal definition and ban everything that falls into that legal definition. It's that the legal definition may not line up with the reality of what makes certain kinds of guns deadly, and therefore leave substantial loopholes.
I mean, you could paint with a pretty broad brush here! "A capacity greater than six bullets," say
Or, instead of defining what's NOT okay, you could define what IS okay "Here's a definition of a pistol/handgun. Things that fall into this definition are okay, everything else is not, get rekt"
Nobody here is arguing that it's impossible to write good laws. We are arguing that it's impossible to write good laws if you have zero understanding of what you're legislating.
That's true in a general sense. I guess I'm not utterly persuaded that you need to know *very much* about the technical specifics of firearms in order to write some draconian gun laws
Part of the issue is that nobody wants to write draconian gun laws. The second amendment prohibits it, and in any case it runs counter to one of the most basic premises of liberal governance, which is that you only write laws as stringent as necessary to achieve your goal.
The first part is true, the second isn't. Banning private firearm possession would own and would not be counter to the principles of liberal governance. (But yeah I agree that you probably need more and better technical knowledge the less heavy-handed you're being)
I know you're a good small-L small-D liberal democrat, which is why I think this exchange is perfectly illustrative of what I describe here. Betraying your own principles over a cultural aversion bsky.app/profile/john...
It's well within your right to have no interest in owning a gun. But if it's possible to dramatically reduce gun deaths *without* a draconian ban, surely you should support that? I earnestly believe that it is. Non-Anglo gun laws across the globe suggest that it is.
Nah
Liberalism doesn't actually require a minimal state, in the sense you're describing (no more intrusion on personal liberty than necessary to achieve particular compelling ends). The democratic community is, within certain limits, entitled to regulate the conditions of social life how it sees fit!
Is firearm ownership within what ought to be the "individual rights" exception to this principle? Fantastically no, not even close! Firearms exist to cause death and destruction. They are eminently regulable, if literally anything is. ALSO!
Absolutely no it is not.
I agree. would you say liberalism demands that the state be limited I.e restrained constitutionally legally procedurally etc so that it respects individual rights up to a point?
I'm not a lawyer, which is why I think my experience here will be valuable. Till this day, the easiest place I've ever purchased a gun is Tokyo. New Delhi has the highest number of shootings in Asia.
Japan has extremely strict gun laws
The Second Amendment is radical not in that it allows keeping of firearms, but that it allows both the rich and poor to own the right to defend themselves.
The facts of guns and gun ownership suggest that it is. But nobody left of center is remotely interested in even learning about this possibility, because even opening up the wikipedia page on the AR-15 makes them feel like they're betraying their families and principles.
I think the future of gun control legislation is probably something like tying ownership of some number of guns to required annual national guard training at your own expense. Even if you can’t ban them you can definitely attach *much* more responsibility to the right.
Still requires a new, non-Calvinball scotus though.
Also if you show up to national guard training and the unit decides you’re dangerous we should absolutely be able to ban you from gun ownership. the “all rights, no responsibilities” approach to guns is not working.
the good news is that we're not legislators
I can already hear the grifters in the distance: "This sounds like a problem for ChatGPT!"
Notably, we have no problem adopting this approach when it comes to single-family-only zoning.
Okay, and then they carry two, or three, or more, and kill 12 people, then what? The Santa Fe high school shooter killed 10 with a revolver and shotgun.
In order to know whether you are accidentally doing that, you have to know something about guns, which Dems refuse to do as a matter of principle. If you don't believe me, just 1) learn about guns, and then 2) come back and reread the replies here.
Miniguns are famously legal to own as they're not regulated under firearms since they have an electronic triggering and cycling mechanism.
Muzzle velocity and magazine capacity
Muzzle velocity, lol
No offense, but I struggle to think of a worse metric you could use to regulate guns. Bolt action hunting rifles tend to have the highest muzzle velocities, and small high-caliber handguns the lowest.
It's fine, you're just some guy shooting from the hip on bluesky, I don't expect you to be able to write good legislation. The problem is that your typical Democratic legislator isn't doing much better.
I specifically said muzzle velocity and magazine capacity because of bolt action rifles.
Bite that bullet? Mmmm, tasty!
Okay. The Ruger 10-22 shoots 22LR -- potentially deadly, but if you saw the bullet you'd think it's a pellet rifle. It generally has a 10 round magazine, and you could legislate that as a requirement. It also has a muzzle velocity of 1260 feet per second.
The Colt 1911 is a 45 caliber handgun and was previously the standard issue sidearm of the US military. It has a 7 round capacity and a muzzle velocity with standard ammunition of ~800 feet per second. Nobody in their right mind would suggest the former is more dangerous than the latter.
Ceterus paribus is a thing, and we can plausibly regulate multiple dimensions at once You could potentially even index them!
Combination of "Rifle" cartridge, magazine capacity, rate of fire Not perfect but can get you close. And better than what we have
Yes that makes sense as you would have to account for the size of the bullets as well, but these metrics are actually related to the lethality of the weapon in ways that the inclusion of grip attachments is really not.
Is my understanding wrong that bullet speed is one of the things that makes the AR-15 more deadly than a hand gun and able to destroy human organs on impact?
Personally I would be happy to accidentally ban hunting rifles lol
Sure thats fine I just dont like being accused of being an idiot when I have actually thought about those two variables before.
You know, I personally also quite dislike being accused of being an idiot when I have in fact thought of the thing the other person thinks I obviously haven't though of. A most unpleasant experience.
What i will say is that they both are right about how dems draft these bills which tend to come down to cosmetic style features that have no relation to lethality.
Oh yeah I'm sure
.22LR has a muzzle velocity of ~1600fps, .45ACP has a muzzle velocity ~900fps. Which is more damaging to the target?
and this isn't even opening the question of hollow points, which are legal in every state except NJ (and even then there's enough exceptions for 'sports' that it's de facto legal)
Or, just subsonic rounds. Which doesn't make them much "safer", although I guess less penetration is a tertiary benefit.
all guns are deadly.