The problem here is that people don't vote or cheer politicians based on considerations of what policy is superior but based on how to advertise their values and concerns. Studies show people make different choices if they think their choice really determines what happens. Unfortunately, this is at its worst in gun regulation.
For example, consider the issue of assault weapons. These are the worst guns to ban from a cost/benefit POV since handguns are far easier to conceal, easier to carry multiple guns for more rounds and people end up carrying them for discrete self-defense. I'd love to restrict handgun ownership. Moreover, the so called assault weapons aren't actually more deadly (indeed most mass shooters would be better served with multiple handguns) -- mostly they differ in their military aesthetic. And because of that people care particularly strongly about keeping their assault weapons relative to other gun types. Yet that's the focus of much gun control because people want to signal their moral disapproval of glorifying violence and the culture these assault weapons represent.
Indeed, I believe there are good policy solutions that gun owners would accept but only if they felt that their desire to own guns was respected (difference between I know it's a sacrifice and I'm sorry but it's needed and the attitude that your desire to own a weapon is sick and bad in itself). Unfortunately, I don't know how to get us there because every new tragedy makes policy less relevant and cultural clash more.
-handguns do not make it easier to carry more rounds in an open-carry (mass shooting) setting. The most common rifle in the US (the AR-15) comes standard with 30 round magazines, whereas a large handgun like a Glock 17 comes with 17 round magazines. An additional handgun would be larger than an additional 30 round AR-15 magazine.
-"assault weapons" are in fact more deadly. A 5.56mm bullet traveling at 2000 fps causes far more catastrophic tissue damage than a 9mm bullet traveling at 1100 fps. Also rifles are significantly easier to shoot accurately and quickly than handguns.
Both of these seem to tip the scales a little more towards "banning these would prevent much greater harm than it causes" in the case of assault weapons.
But here's a reason balancing the scale the other way: most self-defense experts would recommend using a rifle to defend yourself whenever possible (e.g. in your home), precisely *because* of their increased effectiveness (i.e. deadliness) compared to a handgun. Ceteris paribus you are more likely to win a gunfight (or any fight) with a rifle than with a handgun. So while mass shooters are more likely to cause more harm with a rifle, lawful home defenders are more likely to prevent harm with them.
It is absolutely correct that handguns are more commonly used in crimes, because they can be concealed. But for the same reason, they are that much more likely to be used for lawful self-defense whenever outside the home. So while criminals often use handguns to commit crimes, lawful gun owners have them as effectively their only option to defend themselves whenever outside the home.
Trying to weigh the difference in harms caused vs. harms prevented for both kinds of guns would be a really tough problem, but it seems likely that there are more people defending their homes with rifles than people committing shootings with them, so I would cautiously suspect that, if Mike is right that defensive gun uses and criminal gun uses come out to a wash, the balance would tip in favor of NOT prohibiting either rifle or handgun ownership.
1) You can buy handguns with different sized magazines including ones that are 30+ rounds -- but you also don't need to carry around that long barrel.
Yes, large magazines are more frequently found with certain kinds of weapons but that's like saying red cars are more often seen going faster so let's ban red cars instead of creating a speed limit. If you're issue is magazine size ban that because otherwise people will just buy big magazines for handguns.
2) You claim that assault weapons are more deadly and then proceed to show that faster traveling bullets are more deadly. Sure, but nothing about the definition of an assault weapon relates to bullet speed and you can buy semi-auto rifles that aren't assault weapons that have the same rate of fire and same bullet speeds.
--
Regarding defense I'm skeptical that many experts would claim you are better off fumbling in the dark with a rifle rather than a handgun.
Yes, if I'm defending a house against military assault sure I want a rifle to shoot out the windows. If there is a criminal in the house I want something that's small and not getting caught on doorways and where it's hard for them to grab the barrel and point it away.
What makes a rifle better is the increased penetration (not that relevant against soft unarmed targets at close range) and increased long range accuracy (same).
I don't think the red car analogy is quite right, but that's okay. I agree with you that a magazine size ban wouldn't make much difference unless implemented for both handguns and rifles, if that is what you are saying.
I was just using "assault weapon" as I thought leftists use it (to refer to scary black semi-auto rifles shooting intermediate rifle calibers). You are right that you can get scary AR-style rifles in squirrel hunting calibers or boomer-looking wooden-stocked rifles with intermediate rifles calibers and semi auto action and detachable box mags etc. I was just trying to say that the most common "assault weapon" (a standard AR in 5.56) is more deadly than a common handgun (like a Glock 17 or 19).
You aren't correct that rifle rounds don't make a difference against soft unarmed targets at close range compared to handgun rounds. They do. Ask a trauma surgeon. And the maneuverability is a non-issue with the right kind of rifle. I don't care to get into the details of this debate, but feel free to ask any SWAT cop or military operator with real CQB experience and they will tell you that they would by far prefer a 5.56 rifle to a handgun for an indoor gunfight. Most of the time these professionals (who specialize in indoor gunfighting) even use suppressors on their rifles, making them even more unwieldy.
This is all kinda besides the point which is that assault rifle bans aren't actually targeted at features whose banning we should expect to save a substantial (relative to the debate) number of lives. We can quibble around the edges below but clearly the reason people support these bans isn't because the bullets have a bit more energy.
Rather, the passion for banning them comes from a sense that the people who want to own them have bad motives and may be more inclined to participate in a shooting. And I totally understand why people find people who love tactical shit sus and they may be more likely to commit a shooting but that's a very bad reason to ban things people really care about.
--
Yes, I was using the legal meaning which is roughly scary looking rifle (it's semi-auto rifle with features like pistol grip and the picitiny rail). You can often get larger caliber and higher speed projectiles in those boomer looking semi-auto rifles because they were originally produced as safari rifles -- though really higher caliber etc is likely a net negative for the person looking to shoot up a school even if it does more damage.
Yes, other things being equal a rifle bullet does impart more energy so will be a worse injury but that's in the same range of difference that maneuverability is likely to make not to mention the greater concealment potential of handguns. If this was actually the concern you could just ban the mushrooming bullets we allow for handguns (but are prohibited by the Geneva convention in wars).
As far as maneuverability I just don't buy the claim. If you went to one of those quick shooting competitions with a rifle rather than a handgun (even both semi-auto no reloads) I suspect you would lose and it's easier for someone to grab the rifle and disarm you. It's not something that matters to a military unit but if the question is just how many running screaming people can you hit in a school classroom I put my money on the handgun.
If you don't want a gun, you don't have to buy one.
I'm a pretty chilled guy. You do you, leave me and mine alone.
If you want to be part of the rainbow, cool. Just don't push your crap on my kids.
I'll let you in a little secret. You can collect all the weapons you want, and only the criminals will have weapons. Then they'll prey on the people who can no longer protect themselves.
I'm not allergic to the idea of gun rights for citizens. I don't trust the State enough to give them a monopoly on that.
But the recreational use of guns, if that includes hunting, is pretty terrible. Granted, this isn't a gun issue specifically, since people can go around killing animals for sport with lots of non-gun weapons, including their bare hands if they want.
Why not? Surely it's no different than eating meat -- you could go vegetarian but you choose not to because you enjoy it less.
Indeed, given that there are some creatures whose population needs to be controlled (deer in particular) surely it's a win win if we can find people who get joy out of doing that task.
--
Hell, I hope that if I get murdered my murderer really enjoys themselves.
I assume that if we substitute all the wild deer with wild humans that you would not think the overpopulation issue and the joy the hunter gets is sufficient grounds to murder them. So, what is true of deer that if true of wild humans would make it okay to murder the wild humans?
I'm enough of a utilitarian to say that if you had some magical hypothetical where a lone person (with no one to mourn their passing) whose expected future effect on happiness (their future happiness minus sadness adjusted for the loss of happiness caused by food they eat) is less than that gained by the hunter then it would be justified. But the problem with people is always that other people do know about it and the effect of hunting is then not just the end of a life but all the sadness and upset believing that people can be hunted causes -- so same answer as to the standard organ transpo hypothetical.
--
But yes, the view that the killing of animals is almost always wrong is perfectly coherent. What I'm challenging is the idea that the hunter getting a kick out of it is somehow a negative.
So just consider the case where people notice that some deer is obviously in pain and needs to be put down for their own benefit. Surely, it's best in that situation to send out someone who actually enjoys the hunt and killing the deer than someone who will find it unpleasant.
> What I'm challenging is the idea that the hunter getting a kick out of it is somehow a negative.
> So just consider the case where people notice that some deer is obviously in pain and needs to be put down for their own benefit. Surely, it's best in that situation to send out someone who actually enjoys the hunt and killing the deer than someone who will find it unpleasant.
I would say that's not particularly clear. We can think of a situation in the human context that actually does happen. For example, doctors sometimes have to deliver bad news to families in which they inform them that it may be best if they euthanize a loved one for their own benefit. Suppose that the medical system has a policy where they hire psychopaths who enjoy killing these ill humans as much as hunters enjoy killing deer as opposed to normal doctors who understand what must be done but have an ordinary reverence for human life. They do this in about as rigorous as a way as hunters kill animals as far as killing them painlessly and quickly (a bullet to the back of the head). That would seem a bit weird, right?
You may think the potential for abuse is high and that I'm not taking into account those kinds of externalities, but actually I think there are externalities in the hunting case exist too, and are probably larger. For example, if people "bite the utilitarian bullet" in the hunting case, they may be more likely to think hunting or eating meat in general is okay. But if there is a slightly higher disrespect for human life and dignity in the hospital setting, we'll probably still be okay.
Hunting provides a benefit by controlling the population of wildlife. Without hunting, some species will experience wide population swings due to the absence of natural predators, resulting in starvation of the animals and negative impacts on humans. Reintroduction of predators might solve some of these problems at the cost of introducing other problems associated with the predators themselves.
Hunters have as much or better motivation to preserve wildlife species as non-hunting wildlife enthusiasts. It is not clear that ending hunting would reduce the suffering of animals. Only the total elimination of wildlife would end the suffering of wild animals.
Globally, land animals have been profoundly depopulated by hunters, as humans diasporized from Africa. Not sure I'd call that a benefit to the animals. In North America more recently, wildlife has been cleared to make way for our captive herds & flocks. The depopulation of the Buffalo and passenger pigeons in the 19th Century was accomplished mainly with guns, I believe.
I acknowledge there are ecologic-minded hunters, but hunting has also been the handmaiden of our decimation of non-human life on this planet.
I was not suggesting what gun control policy a time traveler should recommend to emigrants if they traveled to prehistoric Africa.
I am talking about hunting in the USA, which is relevant to contemporary gun control policy. Deer, turkey, and moose are the species that come immediately to mind. Pheasant? Duck? Feral pigs in Hawai’i. Conservation efforts benefit from hunting license fees, and assist in preventing deer from becoming overpopulated and over-stressing their habitat in the absence of natural predators.
Ecologic stewardship might require some version of population control, I concede. I'm suspicious of this very violent version of it, though, coming from a species who has used violence to take over the world.
If our concern is animals who overstress their environment, the deer & feral pigs are nothing compared to humans - today even moreso than prehistoric Africa.
It's a fair question, I wonder what the current options are. One that pops to mind is sterilizing - rabbit pellets that reduce spermcount for a season, that sort of thing.
I guess sterilizing is a kind of violence too, kills the genetic future of the individual affected.
I do have faith in our species to come up with non-violent solutions, if we're committed to it. There just hasn't been much incentive to, in the case of our relations with animals, because we've been mostly unbothered by violence against them.
The problem here is that people don't vote or cheer politicians based on considerations of what policy is superior but based on how to advertise their values and concerns. Studies show people make different choices if they think their choice really determines what happens. Unfortunately, this is at its worst in gun regulation.
For example, consider the issue of assault weapons. These are the worst guns to ban from a cost/benefit POV since handguns are far easier to conceal, easier to carry multiple guns for more rounds and people end up carrying them for discrete self-defense. I'd love to restrict handgun ownership. Moreover, the so called assault weapons aren't actually more deadly (indeed most mass shooters would be better served with multiple handguns) -- mostly they differ in their military aesthetic. And because of that people care particularly strongly about keeping their assault weapons relative to other gun types. Yet that's the focus of much gun control because people want to signal their moral disapproval of glorifying violence and the culture these assault weapons represent.
Indeed, I believe there are good policy solutions that gun owners would accept but only if they felt that their desire to own guns was respected (difference between I know it's a sacrifice and I'm sorry but it's needed and the attitude that your desire to own a weapon is sick and bad in itself). Unfortunately, I don't know how to get us there because every new tragedy makes policy less relevant and cultural clash more.
Just a couple of points:
-handguns do not make it easier to carry more rounds in an open-carry (mass shooting) setting. The most common rifle in the US (the AR-15) comes standard with 30 round magazines, whereas a large handgun like a Glock 17 comes with 17 round magazines. An additional handgun would be larger than an additional 30 round AR-15 magazine.
-"assault weapons" are in fact more deadly. A 5.56mm bullet traveling at 2000 fps causes far more catastrophic tissue damage than a 9mm bullet traveling at 1100 fps. Also rifles are significantly easier to shoot accurately and quickly than handguns.
Both of these seem to tip the scales a little more towards "banning these would prevent much greater harm than it causes" in the case of assault weapons.
But here's a reason balancing the scale the other way: most self-defense experts would recommend using a rifle to defend yourself whenever possible (e.g. in your home), precisely *because* of their increased effectiveness (i.e. deadliness) compared to a handgun. Ceteris paribus you are more likely to win a gunfight (or any fight) with a rifle than with a handgun. So while mass shooters are more likely to cause more harm with a rifle, lawful home defenders are more likely to prevent harm with them.
It is absolutely correct that handguns are more commonly used in crimes, because they can be concealed. But for the same reason, they are that much more likely to be used for lawful self-defense whenever outside the home. So while criminals often use handguns to commit crimes, lawful gun owners have them as effectively their only option to defend themselves whenever outside the home.
Trying to weigh the difference in harms caused vs. harms prevented for both kinds of guns would be a really tough problem, but it seems likely that there are more people defending their homes with rifles than people committing shootings with them, so I would cautiously suspect that, if Mike is right that defensive gun uses and criminal gun uses come out to a wash, the balance would tip in favor of NOT prohibiting either rifle or handgun ownership.
1) You can buy handguns with different sized magazines including ones that are 30+ rounds -- but you also don't need to carry around that long barrel.
Yes, large magazines are more frequently found with certain kinds of weapons but that's like saying red cars are more often seen going faster so let's ban red cars instead of creating a speed limit. If you're issue is magazine size ban that because otherwise people will just buy big magazines for handguns.
2) You claim that assault weapons are more deadly and then proceed to show that faster traveling bullets are more deadly. Sure, but nothing about the definition of an assault weapon relates to bullet speed and you can buy semi-auto rifles that aren't assault weapons that have the same rate of fire and same bullet speeds.
--
Regarding defense I'm skeptical that many experts would claim you are better off fumbling in the dark with a rifle rather than a handgun.
Yes, if I'm defending a house against military assault sure I want a rifle to shoot out the windows. If there is a criminal in the house I want something that's small and not getting caught on doorways and where it's hard for them to grab the barrel and point it away.
What makes a rifle better is the increased penetration (not that relevant against soft unarmed targets at close range) and increased long range accuracy (same).
I don't think the red car analogy is quite right, but that's okay. I agree with you that a magazine size ban wouldn't make much difference unless implemented for both handguns and rifles, if that is what you are saying.
I was just using "assault weapon" as I thought leftists use it (to refer to scary black semi-auto rifles shooting intermediate rifle calibers). You are right that you can get scary AR-style rifles in squirrel hunting calibers or boomer-looking wooden-stocked rifles with intermediate rifles calibers and semi auto action and detachable box mags etc. I was just trying to say that the most common "assault weapon" (a standard AR in 5.56) is more deadly than a common handgun (like a Glock 17 or 19).
You aren't correct that rifle rounds don't make a difference against soft unarmed targets at close range compared to handgun rounds. They do. Ask a trauma surgeon. And the maneuverability is a non-issue with the right kind of rifle. I don't care to get into the details of this debate, but feel free to ask any SWAT cop or military operator with real CQB experience and they will tell you that they would by far prefer a 5.56 rifle to a handgun for an indoor gunfight. Most of the time these professionals (who specialize in indoor gunfighting) even use suppressors on their rifles, making them even more unwieldy.
This is all kinda besides the point which is that assault rifle bans aren't actually targeted at features whose banning we should expect to save a substantial (relative to the debate) number of lives. We can quibble around the edges below but clearly the reason people support these bans isn't because the bullets have a bit more energy.
Rather, the passion for banning them comes from a sense that the people who want to own them have bad motives and may be more inclined to participate in a shooting. And I totally understand why people find people who love tactical shit sus and they may be more likely to commit a shooting but that's a very bad reason to ban things people really care about.
--
Yes, I was using the legal meaning which is roughly scary looking rifle (it's semi-auto rifle with features like pistol grip and the picitiny rail). You can often get larger caliber and higher speed projectiles in those boomer looking semi-auto rifles because they were originally produced as safari rifles -- though really higher caliber etc is likely a net negative for the person looking to shoot up a school even if it does more damage.
Yes, other things being equal a rifle bullet does impart more energy so will be a worse injury but that's in the same range of difference that maneuverability is likely to make not to mention the greater concealment potential of handguns. If this was actually the concern you could just ban the mushrooming bullets we allow for handguns (but are prohibited by the Geneva convention in wars).
As far as maneuverability I just don't buy the claim. If you went to one of those quick shooting competitions with a rifle rather than a handgun (even both semi-auto no reloads) I suspect you would lose and it's easier for someone to grab the rifle and disarm you. It's not something that matters to a military unit but if the question is just how many running screaming people can you hit in a school classroom I put my money on the handgun.
If you don't want a gun, you don't have to buy one.
I'm a pretty chilled guy. You do you, leave me and mine alone.
If you want to be part of the rainbow, cool. Just don't push your crap on my kids.
I'll let you in a little secret. You can collect all the weapons you want, and only the criminals will have weapons. Then they'll prey on the people who can no longer protect themselves.
I do not find it in any way acceptable for a jury to convict an innocent man in order to prevent a riot.
I'm not allergic to the idea of gun rights for citizens. I don't trust the State enough to give them a monopoly on that.
But the recreational use of guns, if that includes hunting, is pretty terrible. Granted, this isn't a gun issue specifically, since people can go around killing animals for sport with lots of non-gun weapons, including their bare hands if they want.
I don't think it's right to kill purely for fun. On the other hand, target shooting is a harmless pastime that many people enjoy a lot.
Why not? Surely it's no different than eating meat -- you could go vegetarian but you choose not to because you enjoy it less.
Indeed, given that there are some creatures whose population needs to be controlled (deer in particular) surely it's a win win if we can find people who get joy out of doing that task.
--
Hell, I hope that if I get murdered my murderer really enjoys themselves.
Huemer is a vegetarian.
I assume that if we substitute all the wild deer with wild humans that you would not think the overpopulation issue and the joy the hunter gets is sufficient grounds to murder them. So, what is true of deer that if true of wild humans would make it okay to murder the wild humans?
I'm enough of a utilitarian to say that if you had some magical hypothetical where a lone person (with no one to mourn their passing) whose expected future effect on happiness (their future happiness minus sadness adjusted for the loss of happiness caused by food they eat) is less than that gained by the hunter then it would be justified. But the problem with people is always that other people do know about it and the effect of hunting is then not just the end of a life but all the sadness and upset believing that people can be hunted causes -- so same answer as to the standard organ transpo hypothetical.
--
But yes, the view that the killing of animals is almost always wrong is perfectly coherent. What I'm challenging is the idea that the hunter getting a kick out of it is somehow a negative.
So just consider the case where people notice that some deer is obviously in pain and needs to be put down for their own benefit. Surely, it's best in that situation to send out someone who actually enjoys the hunt and killing the deer than someone who will find it unpleasant.
> What I'm challenging is the idea that the hunter getting a kick out of it is somehow a negative.
> So just consider the case where people notice that some deer is obviously in pain and needs to be put down for their own benefit. Surely, it's best in that situation to send out someone who actually enjoys the hunt and killing the deer than someone who will find it unpleasant.
I would say that's not particularly clear. We can think of a situation in the human context that actually does happen. For example, doctors sometimes have to deliver bad news to families in which they inform them that it may be best if they euthanize a loved one for their own benefit. Suppose that the medical system has a policy where they hire psychopaths who enjoy killing these ill humans as much as hunters enjoy killing deer as opposed to normal doctors who understand what must be done but have an ordinary reverence for human life. They do this in about as rigorous as a way as hunters kill animals as far as killing them painlessly and quickly (a bullet to the back of the head). That would seem a bit weird, right?
You may think the potential for abuse is high and that I'm not taking into account those kinds of externalities, but actually I think there are externalities in the hunting case exist too, and are probably larger. For example, if people "bite the utilitarian bullet" in the hunting case, they may be more likely to think hunting or eating meat in general is okay. But if there is a slightly higher disrespect for human life and dignity in the hospital setting, we'll probably still be okay.
Recreational use also includes target shooting.
Hunting provides a benefit by controlling the population of wildlife. Without hunting, some species will experience wide population swings due to the absence of natural predators, resulting in starvation of the animals and negative impacts on humans. Reintroduction of predators might solve some of these problems at the cost of introducing other problems associated with the predators themselves.
Hunters have as much or better motivation to preserve wildlife species as non-hunting wildlife enthusiasts. It is not clear that ending hunting would reduce the suffering of animals. Only the total elimination of wildlife would end the suffering of wild animals.
Globally, land animals have been profoundly depopulated by hunters, as humans diasporized from Africa. Not sure I'd call that a benefit to the animals. In North America more recently, wildlife has been cleared to make way for our captive herds & flocks. The depopulation of the Buffalo and passenger pigeons in the 19th Century was accomplished mainly with guns, I believe.
I acknowledge there are ecologic-minded hunters, but hunting has also been the handmaiden of our decimation of non-human life on this planet.
I was not suggesting what gun control policy a time traveler should recommend to emigrants if they traveled to prehistoric Africa.
I am talking about hunting in the USA, which is relevant to contemporary gun control policy. Deer, turkey, and moose are the species that come immediately to mind. Pheasant? Duck? Feral pigs in Hawai’i. Conservation efforts benefit from hunting license fees, and assist in preventing deer from becoming overpopulated and over-stressing their habitat in the absence of natural predators.
Ecologic stewardship might require some version of population control, I concede. I'm suspicious of this very violent version of it, though, coming from a species who has used violence to take over the world.
If our concern is animals who overstress their environment, the deer & feral pigs are nothing compared to humans - today even moreso than prehistoric Africa.
What is the non-violent alternative?
It's a fair question, I wonder what the current options are. One that pops to mind is sterilizing - rabbit pellets that reduce spermcount for a season, that sort of thing.
I guess sterilizing is a kind of violence too, kills the genetic future of the individual affected.
I do have faith in our species to come up with non-violent solutions, if we're committed to it. There just hasn't been much incentive to, in the case of our relations with animals, because we've been mostly unbothered by violence against them.