For those who haven't read enough, here's another chunk of the debate yesterday:


Jim Sarafin — 10/28/2023 3:08 PM
We should decide whether we're talking about banning certain guns or regulating them. I'd be willing to have more regulations, particularly regs targeted at AR purchases.


[3:08 PM]
Does the article mention what I said about hunting rounds?

Ms. A — 10/28/2023 3:10 PM
Here's the next section in the interactive story " Any bullet can kill, and instantly, when it hits a vital organ. The higher speed of a bullet from an AR-15 causes far more damage after it hits the body and drastically reduces a person’s chances of survival."

“As that bullet slows down,” said trauma surgeon Babak Sarani, an authority on casualties from mass killings, “that energy is so massive it has to go someplace, and your body will literally tear apart.”


Jim Sarafin — 10/28/2023 3:11 PM
LOL, the .223 is among the slowest I shoot.

[3:11 PM]
I'll show you a chart

Ms. A — 10/28/2023 3:12 PM
It's about the blast effect

Jim Sarafin — 10/28/2023 3:13 PM
What counts isn't velocity, but the energy the bullet carries and transmits to the body


Ms. A — 10/28/2023 3:13 PM
There have been huge debates about whether crime scene photos should be released. Some bodies can only be identified by DNA.

[3:15 PM]
I could send you a dozen stories from publications with the highest standards focusing on the damage bullets from these guns do to bodies.


Jim Sarafin — 10/28/2023 3:15 PM
https://www.ableammo.com/catalog/ammo_charts/vitalshok-chart.html

[3:16 PM]
The .223 is the first cartridge listed because it's the lightest
[3:17 PM]
No doubt, at close range, multiple shots from an AR can make quite a mess.
[3:18 PM]
But don't talk about slippery slope arguments, when already an argument against the AR is the damage it causes to humans--less than my hunting rifles would cause.

Mr. B — 10/28/2023 3:26 PM
So, it can be pretty frustrating to get a response like this, because one of the ways the NRA and its allies shut down opposition is by claiming “you don’t know anything about guns”

Jim Sarafin — 10/28/2023 3:26 PM
Well, you don't, from the sound of it,

Mr . B — 10/28/2023 3:27 PM
Yes, it’s important for the people creating gun policies to know what they’re talking about, but it misses the point that gun advocates don’t want any regulation at all

Jim Sarafin — 10/28/2023 3:27 PM
I do

Mr. B — 10/28/2023 3:27 PM
They flip out and start waving the 2nd Amendment when we so much as claim that convicted domestic abusers shouldn’t be armed

[3:28 PM]
So what I’d ask of you, Jim, as a person with common sense who believes in regulations and also knows about guns, is: what would you suggest?

Ms. A — 10/28/2023 3:28 PM
Gotta go. All I'll close with is that many sources I've read, that have the highest standards for verification, have focused on the damage this gun does to the human body. Is it because the bullet is light and fired in a particular way? Or because it breaks in the body? Don't have time to research it at this moment. There's a consensus, though.

Mr. B — 10/28/2023 3:29 PM
Because that strikes me as a better place to focus your intelligence than splitting hairs about the difference between velocity and force

Jim Sarafin — 10/28/2023 3:40 PM
The NRA wouldn't like it, but I quit my membership years ago anyway. We need better screening of purchasers. The form you now sign affirms you're not a felon, a drug user, a fugitive, under a domestic violence order, or mentally incompetent. Who's going to admit to any of that? "Uh, yup, I'm a fugitive, yup!" Once you fill out the form, the seller sends it to the FBI, which checks to make sure you're not on one of their lists. If not, they tell the seller you're good to go. It takes at most a half hour from the time you say you want the gun until you're walking out of the store with it.


[3:40 PM]
Ah, but misstatements ought to be corrected, Sam.


[3:41 PM]
It's misleading to point to the damage a .223 can do to a human body, without mentioning that most common hunting rounds would do worse.

Mr. C — 10/28/2023 3:45 PM
True, but there's a unique dynamic at play. Gun nuts (not saying you are one, but referring to the most extremist of gun advocates) will claim that expertise about guns is necessary to have a sufficiently informed ideological stance on guns, but who is more likely to know more about guns, an avid defender of them or someone who doesn't care for them? It paints the gun control crowd as uninformed before the debate even starts, but fundamentally, I believe that if we're talking about fine practical details like bump stocks (whatever the ---- those are) rather than what to do with all these killing machines?, then the conversation is already on the wrong foot.
👆🏻
1
Jim Sarafin — 10/28/2023 3:47 PM
Alex, doesn't that all suggest that people ought to do their homework before taking a firm stance on an issue?

@Jim Sarafin
Ah, but misstatements ought to be corrected, Sam.

Mr. B — 10/28/2023 3:48 PM
I don't disagree on principle, I'm just questioning the most effective use of our energy. People aren't dying because the general public is not correct about the exact size and use case for a .223. They're dying because it's way too easy for people who shouldn't have guns to get them.

Mr. C — 10/28/2023 3:49 PM
Social sciences are also science. It's more (at least, as) important to know the statistics behind guns owned in a home re. accidental discharge deaths. I don't know much about how guns work, because I don't particularly care, nor has it ever seemed relevant. I know a lot about the statistics surrounding gun deaths in America because living in 2023 has given me no choice. (edited)
💯
1

Ms. A — 10/28/2023 3:49 PM
Really do need to go, but found one of the many articles that gets into the damage caused by military-style rifles. This is from a 2018 NYTs article. I'll attach the link after I post this, in case anyone has an account and wants to look it up. "At a high school in Parkland, Fla., 17 people were recently killed with just such a weapon — a semiautomatic AR-15. It was legal there for Nikolas Cruz, 19, the suspect in the shooting, to buy a civilian version of the military’s standard rifle, while he would have had to be 21 to buy a less powerful and accurate handgun.

Many factors determine the severity of a wound, including a bullet’s mass, velocity and composition, and where it strikes. The AR-15, like the M4 and M16 rifles issued to American soldiers, shoots lightweight, high-speed bullets that can cause grievous bone and soft tissue wounds, in part by turning sideways, or “yawing,” when they hit a person. Surgeons say the weapons produce the same sort of horrific injuries seen on battlefields.

Civilian owners of military-style weapons can also buy soft-nosed or hollow-point ammunition, often used for hunting, that lacks a full metal jacket and can expand and fragment on impact. Such bullets, which can cause wider wound channels, are proscribed in most military use.

A radiologist at the hospital that treated victims of the Parkland attack wrote in The Atlantic about a surgeon there who “opened a young victim in the operating room and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit.”

What follows are the recollections of five trauma surgeons. Three of them served in the military, and they emphasized that their opinions are their own and do not represent those of the armed forces. One has treated civilian victims of such weapons in American cities. And a pediatric surgeon treated victims of a Texas church shooting last year.
[3:51 PM]
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/health/parkland-shooting-victims-ar15.html
The New York Times
By Gina Kolata and C. J. Chivers
Wounds From Military-Style Rifles? ‘A Ghastly Thing to See’ (Publis...
Trauma surgeons tell what it is really like to try to repair such devastating injuries. “Bones are exploded, soft tissue is absolutely destroyed,” one said.
Wounds From Military-Style Rifles? ‘A Ghastly Thing to See’ (Publis...

Mr. C — 10/28/2023 3:52 PM
And more often than not, discussions about the engineering of guns sidelines more important societal discussions. Like, most of the complaints I've heard from gun nuts center around liberals not understanding stuff like the previously mentioned bump stocks. But honestly, I don't think we should have to. I don't need to understand car engines to know that we should require licensing and registration.
💯
3
👆
1

Jim Sarafin — 10/28/2023 3:55 PM
Guns aren't cars though. Where is the Constitutional right to drive to be found?
[3:55 PM]
I disagree with licensing and registration
[3:56 PM]
I'm not sure what a bump stock is either, lol

Mr. B — 10/28/2023 3:58 PM
If the Founding Fathers had cars, there might have been a Constitutional right to drive. As it is, we'll have to settle for accepting that the Constitution is supposed to evolve

Mr. C — 10/28/2023 3:59 PM
And that's a totally legitimate disagreement to have; I personally don't think the Constitution should be held as reverently as it is. But the underlying point is that a discussion on that point is about that, whereas a discussion about the engineering of guns generally just serves to make the pro-gun control person look uninformed without actually having much bearing on the ideological discussion in question.

Mr. B — 10/28/2023 3:59 PM
The Constitution says a black person is 3/5 of a human being. I don't say that to draw a false equivalency, just to point out that our beliefs are meant to shape and change the foundations of this country, not be held hostage to them

Jim Sarafin — 10/28/2023 3:59 PM
A license is a grant of permission. A right does not require permission. We don't need a license to publish our words, and shouldn't need a license to exercise our Second Amendment rights either.

[4:00 PM]
The Founding Fathers had horses and buggies, but never enacted a right to drive.

Mr. B — 10/28/2023 4:01 PM
Like I said above, the evidence is clear. Stronger laws mean fewer deaths. https://www.thetrace.org/newsletter/states-gun-laws-domestic-violence-homicides-study/
The Trace
Bulletin: States With Tougher Restrictions on Gun Ownership Experie...
Women in America are shot to death by their current or former romantic partners with alarming regularity — once every 16 hours, as my colleague Jennifer Mascia has written. New research published today in the American Journal of Epidemiology offers some clues into state laws that may help reduce those killings. The study found that states that p...
Bulletin: States With Tougher Restrictions on Gun Ownership Experie...

[4:01 PM]
Every second we spend arguing about clip size and velocity instead of doing the thing that we know saves human lives is a second wasted on a sideshow. And yes, we may not be legislators, but conversations like these influence how people vote and advocate


Jim Sarafin — 10/28/2023 4:02 PM
Sam, the Constitution was amended later. Black people were acknowledged as full citizens when the 14th Amendment passed.


Mr. B — 10/28/2023 4:03 PM
I'm aware of this, and it's part of my argument. The Constitution has a provision for being amended. Now, because of our current political environment, amending it is impossible at present. Does that mean we shouldn't even discuss ways in which it could change?
[4:03 PM]
If we're only allowed to talk about things as they're politically expedient, we'll never move the Overton Window enough to solve any of our persistent problems

Jim Sarafin — 10/28/2023 4:03 PM
Liz, I agree with most of what your last post says, especially this: "Many factors determine the severity of a wound, including a bullet’s mass, velocity and composition, and where it strikes. "


[4:05 PM]
Sam: Of course we're free to discuss possible Constitutional amendments. A very difficult process, as you note.

Ms. D — 10/28/2023 4:06 PM
I am jumping in here briefly -- I think we need much stronger licensing requirements (gimme though 40 hours of range practice before you're allowed to take a gun home) and I think you should have to renew your gun license with a test regularly, like they do in many other countries.


Jim Sarafin — 10/28/2023 4:07 PM
I don't think requiring a license would be constitutional.


Ms. D — 10/28/2023 4:07 PM
I've got family in Idaho that hunts, my mom hunted for sustanence as a kid growing up poor, and honestly the regard for guns as an object of like identity vs something used for a purpose that you need to use appropriatly is ridiculous


[4:07 PM]
I mean, these days you have to have a license to vote! and we have a constitutional right to that too

[4:08 PM]
so like, I don't find that to be a useful reason not to require licensing and testing

[4:08 PM]
this is something that only happens here, the CONSTANT overwhelming violence against civilians by people who purchase guns last minute and then go out on murder sprees


[4:09 PM]
I have regular conversations with my partner about whether we think it is even safe to have children in this country because of the school shootings like


[4:11 PM]
and as much as I'd like to ban AR-15s, I think that starting at point of sale would make more of an immediate difference, and also reduces the risk of people going after guns used for hunting. Most folks I know who hunt are using ranges regularly so having time-use requirements won't harm them but would stop most of the recent mass shooting purchasers


Jim Sarafin — 10/28/2023 4:29 PM
Dyani, believe it or not, there is no right to vote per se in the US Constitution. Regulation of voting was reserved to the states. Later amendments, after the 14th, prohibited denial of voting rights based on race or sex.


[4:29 PM]
https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/what-does-the-constitution-say-about-the-right-to-vote/

Democracy Docket
What Does the Constitution Say About the Right to Vote?
Read the latest by Democracy Docket.
What Does the Constitution Say About the Right to Vote?

October 29, 2023

Mr. B — Yesterday at 8:13 AM
Jim — if you have one and don’t have any use for it, it sounds like you’d be the perfect participant for a buyback. And there must be more people like you
[8:14 AM]
The more I think about the buyback idea, the more it feels worth trying to me. It doesn’t “take anyone’s guns,” and if nobody uses it, at least the government has barely lost any money
[8:15 AM]
I hate having to tiptoe around the feelings of the kind of person who makes guns their entire identity, but they’re voters too

Jim Sarafin — Yesterday at 3:44 PM
Sam, I'd comply with a mandatory buy-back--especially if penalties for not doing so included loss of right to own the firearms I do care about. Felons can't own or possess guns unless their civil rights have been restored by a court. I'm not going to become a felon over a rifle I don't care about. But a lot of AR-15 owners swear they would not comply, judging from posts left on guns/hunting/reloading forums. Maybe most of it is bluster, but I'd guess at least ten percent is not. That leaves at least two million ARs in circulation or possession by two million owners. If law enforcement could catch them all, the courts would be tied up for years.


[3:50 PM]
Incidentally, "AR" is an acronym for "Armalite Rifle," not "assault rifle." Armalite was the original company that designed the military version of the AR-15, the M-16. The M-16 is the full-automatic version, in other words a type of machine gun. The civilian version, the AR-15, has a semi-automatic action, that is it fires once every time you press the trigger. Not a machine gun.
💯
1

Ms. A — Yesterday at 4:18 PM
Did anyone argue that AR stood for assault rifle?


Jim Sarafin — Yesterday at 4:43 PM
A couple other thoughts. It makes more sense to me to target legislation at the individuals perpetrating these horrible shootings than at the tools, i.e., firearms, they're using. Because if we could eliminate all AR-15s with a wave of a wand, the psychopaths will then turn to semi-auto hunting shotguns and rifles. A shotgun loaded with steel or lead buckshot could do serious damage to a crowd. Not the hydrostatic shock damage Liz was talking about, but the low-velocity pellets will punch holes in everything they encounter. Do away with all firearms, and they will drive motor vehicles into crowds. Preventing guys like Card from acquiring these rifles makes more sense to me.
👍
1

[4:44 PM]
No Liz, I was just babbling. Forgive me.

Ms. A — Yesterday at 5:01 PM
My two-high school district now spends over a million yearly to pay for security guards. In 2018, they spent $0. Additionally, they've spent tens of millions on building changes meant to improve security. I sent us down a rabbit hole when I focused on assault rifles. There are many kinds of guns that are a problem and we have way too many of them in this country. They're too easy for everyone to get. Supporting the most expansive reading of the Second Amendment in the history of our country is costing taxpayers billions of dollars. It makes ordinary people scared to do the simplest things. Protecting gun manufacturers from lawsuits and making research into gun violence almost impossible to conduct exacerbates this problem. I just don't understand how this expansive reading of this amendment is in the common good. It protects the rights of hobbyists to have every gun that has ever been sold to a consumer in this country, and as many of them as they want forever and ever, without consideration of the very real costs of blood, tears, and gold. As a high school teacher, I should not need to know the safest and fastest way to break a window and secure a door. Yet each year there are new horrifying layers to my mandated active shooter training. I just can't understand how anyone could imagine that this is what the framers had in mind.

Jim Sarafin — Yesterday at 5:12 PM
And you said I was making a slippery slope argument...

Ms. A — Yesterday at 5:43 PM
Where's the slope? Omit "forever and ever" if you like. I thought you were unwilling to part with any gun models. I may have mis

Ms. E — Yesterday at 5:45 PM
Being able to argue theoretical if/ands is a luxury only affordable for those who don't have an active stake in the situation. I don't think anyone who lives in/near Lewistown is on here arguing theory. I don't think anyone who has school age children is here arguing for these guns that any idiot can wield with no training and with such massively terrible consequences. The fact is 18 human beings are dead because they were hit with high powered, high speed bullets. Could people be murdered other ways? Of course. Is this a super popular, highly efficent way to murder lots of human beings really fast with very little effort on part of the murderer? Yes. A quick search says 510 people have died from mass shootings this year. But sometimes, the bigger thr number of something, the harder it is to comprehend. So, here's one person:
Image

Ms. D— Yesterday at 5:45 PM
Yeah nothing in Liz’s comment looked like a slippery slope

Ms. E— Yesterday at 5:48 PM
He died in Lewiston. He was 14. He'd still be alive in a sane world, a world that put compassion for human beings first. I could argue theory. But i don't have that luxury. I'm going to turn off my phone and go discuss situational awareness with my own 14 year old son in the hopes that situational awareness might be enough armour against these American weapons. (edited)
❤️
3


Jim

Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto > Quotes > Quotable Quote


(?)
“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”
― Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

Peace through strength.

Protection of my family against feral hogs as well as my domesticated animals.

since you failed to point out the OBVIOUSLY biased "facts" quoted from thetrace.org article, I'd conclude you weren't much of a lawyer.

talking ballistics to differentiate an "okay" gun from all the other ones to such an emotional group would be counter-productive; and you'd think you'd be smart enough to not go there.

I'm fairly convinced that trapdog1 is correct.

Cold, dead hands. I'm not interested in debating or negotiating with people I don't like. That would be the disloyal opposition.

Why would one debate a right? If you do not believe in The Constitution, you are living in the wrong country. Freedom isn't for sissies. Move to Australia if you want to live somewhere help is only minutes away when seconds matter.

Please don’t. That’s not a debate, those individuals do not think logically and they won’t start. If they were zebras, they would be the reason the rest of the herd stopped running.

just one of James' writing exercises...

James, one question. Why?

One doesn't need a license to vote, one needs an ID. Or for that matter a utility bill and other means of "identification". You could give the argument that the forms of ID required to buy a gun are more stringent that to vote.

Also if the .223 is so "powerful" why isn't it a legal cartridge to use for big game hunting in some states. It's only been recent that a 223 has been a legal caliber to hunt whitetails here in MN>

At the time of the writing of the constitution ,a musket was a military weapon.

And at that time, who would have the advantage at, say, 30 yards; the fella with the musket or the one with a war axe? How about today, say, 20 yards. I have a 12 ga. pump with 00 buck and you have an AR-15. I'm feeling pretty good about my odds.

never heard of a lawyer asking non-lawyers for advice on winning ANY argument/discussion...

Did the Founders speak in terms of, "Everyone can and should be armed, except that they cannot bear any arms as effective as what KIng George's British soldiers had?"
The answer would be no.
The same goes for domestic enemies of the State. The Democrats are under the delusion that they are the collective "King" of this nation.
The 2nd Amendment was put in place to protect The People from them as well.

People are blind to think we are immune to armed foreign attacks. Our 2nd ammendment may be the best deterrent from that. Most of the time the mass shooters target the gun free zones, I wonder why that could be?

So, James is for more regulation. Got it.

Thanks for the read

Violent or criminal gun owners would not comply with a ban or buyback.
Licensing or training requirements could be met by someone with mental problems or bad intentions.
Someone who is too dangerous to possess a firearm is dangerous without one. If someone out on bond cannot be trusted with a gun, they shouldn't be out on bond. If a convicted domestic abuser kills someone, they weren't rehabilitated. The justice system failed, not the gun laws.

You must be joking. Do you not remember the last election? If there was no fraud, as you claim, how did Joe Biden win? Trump was a racist to win the black/hispanic vote. A meanie to get the soccer moms. Russian collusion for academia and the media. You name it, there was a demographic being targeted by the negativity.

In 2019, 13922 people died of homicide. Of that number, 1591 people were killed by hammers, poison, fire, etc (non knives or firearms), 600 homicides were committed by hands feet or fists, and 364 were killed with rifles - not just assualt rifles - but all rifles combined - from .22 single shots to .50 BMG.

https://www.criminalattorneycolumbus.com/which-weapons-are-most-commonly-used-for-homicides/

There are currently about 25,000,000 “assault rifles” - or as I call them - anti assault rifles. I call them anti assault rifles because that is the reason why probably 99.999% of AR style rifles were purchased. Most people purchase weapons for self defense - not to assault someone. If we consider that half the rifle homicides - or about 180 deaths were caused by anti assault rifles - if each of those homicides were a single killing - the likelihood of an anti assault rifle being used in a homicide is less than one thousandths of one percent.

That is almost no chance - but the chance is there - no matter how slight. Should we stop everyone from drinking alcohol because 10,000 people die a year in alcohol related deaths? Maybe we should stop the sale of all drugs - legal or not to save the 100,000 people each year who die of drug overdoses. Oh, wait - many illicit drugs are already illegal - how is that working out? And even a few pure nut case states are legalizing these highly dangerous drugs.

Even if you banned the sale today of anti assault weapons - there are already 25 MILLION in present ownership - not to mention an immediate illegal market that would commence overnight. What are they going to do - go door to door - and ask everyone to voluntarily give up their anti assault rifle. I have bought a number of that style weapon - both FFL registered and through private sales. I have also lost or sold through private sales all I have owned - with the exception of one - a blem PSA that I would grudgingly turn over. Just because you dont have a legally registered anti assault weapon in your possession does not mean you dont legally own one. So do you knock on every door in the US and ask politely?

It would be one thing if the US only had a very small number of anti assault weapons in private ownership like canada, england, or france - but we are waaaaay passed that. Do we punish millions of legal owners to try to stop something that is most likely to happen anyway? Recent mass killers have proven they will kill their own family to carry out their dastardly deed. It is unlikely a ban on the sale is going to stop someone with already so many of these rifles in circulation.

As far as the weapon style itself - it lends itself very well to being the perfect sporting arm in many cases. My 6’3” tall son can use the same rifle as his 7 yr old daughter because of the adjustability of things like stocks, forearms, and handgrips. Uppers of different calibers can be exchanged in seconds - to adjust from hunting prairie dogs to black bears with the same lower. Parts are interchangeable between different manufacturers. Aftermarket parts are largely interchangeable. You dont have to go buy a scope rail for a rem 700 -because all the AR style rings fit the different manufacturers of those rifles. You can select a five rd mag for target practice or a 50 rd mag for hunting large groups of hogs. The legitimate reasons to own an AR are wide and varied.

My dog bit the UPS delivery man once. A deputy came to my house to fill out the paperwork for the dog bite. While he was there, I noticed an AR 15 in his service vehicle and we discussed that weapon for a few minutes - upon which he told me he was finished with his investigation. His final comment to me was:

“Our office is 45 minutes from your house. If something happens, and you call our office, it will all be over with by the time I arrive.” He said “If I lived out here, I would want a dog just like yours and a rifle just like mine”.

I’d just post a picture of a loaded gun sitting on a table. The gun itself will sit there and do no harm until someone with malintent chooses to use it in the wrong way.

The folks Jim is debating with are all upper income people. They have always lived in safe areas. Always lived where the police are enough to satisfy their need for law enforcement. They have no experience with needing self protection.
They are also liberals. They are satisfied with government control of their lives. Jim is much the same way. Unless forced into a deadly situation they will never understand the need for a firearm.
The present background d check and red flag laws aren't working because the government isn't getting and using the information they should be. Yet even James thi KS more laws are needed.
Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome?

I just think there should be better or more screening on merchant firearms sales that the current affidavit, the falsification of which is almost never punished.

Jim