No problem with guns - some of my best friends, etc. But do you think that before someone can own a gun, he or she should get a license? And that there should be different categories (rifles, handguns, machine guns), just as a car's driving license doesn't mean you can get behind the wheel of a truck?

Posted November 8, 2002 12:13 AM by Andrew Boucher

"...Anybody who comes along and posts stupid gnu-control flaming boilerplate in my Comments section..."

WHAT'S ALL THIS TALK ABOUT GNU CONTROL?

--Emily Littella

Posted November 8, 2002 12:15 AM by Adam

I'm a little surprised you coped with the 1911 as well as you did. That's a large pistol, and I remember you with smallish hands.

The AR series has light triggers, nature of the breed. They're designed to throw lead downrange. I'm not a big fan of them, or of the .223 Remington/5.56 NATO round as a whole, but they are effective (as the recent Virgina/Maryland events demonstrate.)

The tommy gun? I never liked, but I've only fired the cheaper M1A1 models. The earlier Navy model may be better, but the front grip handle is a bad idea -- you're clearly holding the thing too long, and you can't lock your left arm in, which is why your grouping is heading from lower right to upper left. The M1A1's stock, rather than grip, would have let you get a better hold on the weapon.

(Fun, weren't it?)

Posted November 8, 2002 12:22 AM by Erik V. Olson

I read Thompson gun and immediately think of Warren Zevon, even though that's likely the wrong model.

On our honeymoon, Jo and I were invited to stay at Chris Bunch's for the night. Being peaceable Canadians and all, the vast amount of weaponry was a bit of a shock. Jo gave me many looks throughout the night, mostly of the "What the hell have you gotten me into?" category. But she tried out Karen's new laser sight on the pistol (aimed it at the pillow), and left the next day feeling pretty comfortable. Not that she'll ever hold a gun again, but still...

Posted November 8, 2002 12:41 AM by Derryl Murphy

My hands are indeed small, which is why I'm holding the pistol with both hands parallel, instead of with my left hand underneath like I should. That's a seven-pound trigger.

Yes, I'm holding the tommy gun too long; or rather, I'm too short. I did wonder why I had so much trouble correcting rightwards.

Darn straight it was fun. You should see some of the stuff they have for rent there. There was one piece up on the wall that I successfully identified to Nancy and Jim by saying "the one that looks like it was designed by Chuck Jones."

Posted November 8, 2002 12:44 AM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Hands parallel is *correct*, no shame there. You were just going to get a nasty bit from the hammer if it was an 1911, rather than the 1911A. The 1911A does have a fairly heavy trigger -- it has to, otherwise, you end up with a sear disengagment, and you're suddenly firing full auto. Oops.

Your not too short. The Tommy is too long. You have to be just so to fire a M1928 properly. (This is why the M1A1 had a stock, rather than a forward handgrip, it fits many more people.)

Posted November 8, 2002 12:56 AM by Erik V. Olson

I just reread Ken MacLeod's The Star Fraction, which features a custom-built gun-computer hybrid. Imagine the discussions if such things were in regular production?

Posted November 8, 2002 1:07 AM by Avram

GNU control is what Microsoft wants to do to Open Source, or when ESR and RMS throttle one another at a public gathering. :)

I went to see "Bowling for Columbine" last week, and while it was erratic, Moore did have an interesting thread in there. "It's not the guns, it's the culture."

Avran, what would ESR do if he found a Trotskite AI in his gun... (scratches goatee thoughtfuly)

Posted November 8, 2002 2:51 AM by Bill Humphries

Oooh. Tasty crunchy essay. Nice. Permission to link, ma'am?

Posted November 8, 2002 3:12 AM by elise

I have also had the opportunity to fire some guns owned by a friend. I found that it strengthened my position on gun control, because I was now sure that I understood the reality of guns.

It's a seductive pleasure. It could be quite addictive. It was my own enjoyment of firing them that scared me.

Also, I was able to experience a reality with my own eyes: big guns (I think it was some kind of AR-15 I shot at those pumpkins) don't make neat little holes in things; they blow them apart.

I do have to say, I no longer think handguns should be banned outright. (I never thought hunting rifles should.) I've always been a registration/limitation guy, not an outright banner.

I hope this is gnu enough. (I insist on gnu control. Large wild animals, albeit vegetarian ones, even with cloven hooves, must NOT be allowed to run unchecked through our city streets.)

Posted November 8, 2002 7:23 AM by Christopher Hatton

Teresa,
You continue to amaze me. Do you think there's any chance we can set up a shooting room at the next Boskone??

I used to be a member of a shooting club on the south shore, back when I was single and irresponsible. Christopher's point about the scariness of guns is well taken. But I think it's good to be at least exposed to them so that you are at least not petrified by the sight of one and can learn how to handle one--even if only to keep it safe.

I used to have a .22 French Ap-85, which looked sort of like an AK-47. But it jammed all the time. I bought it mostly for the look and for use as a prop in some indie movie projects. When I took it at last to my home town police station to get rid of it, one of the sergeants there looked it over (rather longingly I thought) and finally offered me fifty bucks for it. Thus my brief history as an arms dealer....

Posted November 8, 2002 9:00 AM by John Farrell

Elise, permission to link is never required; but if it were, you would certainly have it.

Chris, you're right about the pumpkins. Jim tells me that the .45 Colt has a 98% kill rate if you hit someone with it. Shooting at soda cans makes a good demo for why this is so. The operative term here is "hydrostatic shock"; the principle is that water doesn't compress. If you shoot at empty soda cans, you just put not-altogether-untidy holes through them. If you fill them with water, though, the "exit wound" rips out the side of the can.

I'd like driving a lot less if people didn't have to register their cars, have them inspected for basic functionality, and demonstrate their driving proficiency and knowledge of the traffic laws before being allowed out on the road.

Erik, The reason I didn't wind up with train tracks on my uppermost hand is that I'm small enough to still have clearance when I've got both hands parallel. This is as opposed to the person who was teaching me, who has hands so big that he could disguise them with finger puppets and suborn Alaskan king crabs. He favors having your non-trigger hand palm-up, supporting the gun.

Firing full auto with a Colt .45 would be darned useless, unless you want to make holes in the ceiling.

Derryl, I've watched British visitors come face-to-face with guns. They were visibly rattled by the experience.

More on all this in a bit.

Posted November 8, 2002 9:06 AM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

I found trap shooting to be entirely to my taste. Something about swinging the barrel of the shotgun across the sky tracking the target is, um, satisfying.

Posted November 8, 2002 9:56 AM by Sigrid Ellis

I used to find guns scary, but after 20 years of living in a house with guns, none of which ever attacked me, I am no longer blindly phobic. I still don't like them.

Posted November 8, 2002 10:00 AM by Arthur D. Hlavaty

Avram: I am reminded of the "loquacious lasers, Smith and Wesson", from Phil Foglio's Buck Godot: Zap Gun for Hire.

Posted November 8, 2002 10:20 AM by Seth Gordon

A shooting range story and then a comment:

I don't remember when the John Wayne Commerorative Colt .45 came out, but a one-time friend (who had only just gotten into owning guns and began buying them left and right) purchased one and off we went to the range. He drank quite a bit in those days (and through the decade following) and the range had, a mere 30 feet away, a bar...you get the picture. Well, he proceeded to let a fellow shooter fire off some rounds. When the pistol was returned, he made the horrific mistake of assuming his buddy had fired all the bullets in the barrel, then, to accompany a story that goes with the pistol, began cocking the hammer back through the four clicks that allegedly stand for C-o-l-t...and then it fired, scaring the living pis out of all of us. He basically did nothing more than exclaim in a somewhat slurred voice "Oh, shit!" and his fellow shooters at the range just looked at him in total shock. He was allowed to maintain his membership in the hunting and fishing club and, was told, that he was resposible for another errant discharge sometime after that. Scary stuff.

Though I am referred to as the Liberal (the only one) amongst my aquaintences, I have always believed gun ownership is perfectly acceptable (with proper precautions, obviously) and that carry-permits should legally be made more accessible to responsible citizens (how resposible you think the afore-mentioned person is i'll leave for you to decide). I am definitely leery, however, of the legal allowability of someone to sell their collection of, say, fifty handguns to anyone who has the cash...background check be damned. Can't see why a resourceful, intelligent nation like ours cannot have gun ownership hand-in-hand with a techno. system of tracing guns used in crimes.

Posted November 8, 2002 11:29 AM by John

I'll admit to having been knee-jerk anti gun until a friend took me to a firing range for my birthday. My feelings on gun control have been conflicted ever since. And being conflicted is, possibly, a necessary step toward developing an educated, considered, and defensible position.

Love the Clint Eastwood shawl, Teresa.

Posted November 8, 2002 11:34 AM by Greg van Eekhout

Back in 1977, as I was preparing to move to NY, a fellow I knew said "you know, if you're going to live up there, you're going to have to know how to handle a piece."

We went out to his place; his parents owned one of the smaller horse farms just outside Lexington. It was a beautiful late summer day.

I'd never seen his gun room. He had, it seemed to me at the time, one of everything. We could step directly outside and walk a short distance across a patio to a non-horse-filled field. We did so repeatedly, as he thought I should try firing every gun he owned just to get a feel for them, to see which one I thought could be best used on the more obstreperous members of the NY populace.

Fired a .22, a .38, a Colt .45, a Magnum (just like in Dirty Harry, yes); several different rifles -- no Mannlicher-Carcanos on hand but he owned pretty much everything else that was available at the time.

And, while he had no Tommy guns (or anything else automatic) I did get to fire a nice big shotgun. Don't miss it next time, Teresa. It makes a hell of a racket and I had a bruise on my shoulder for a week after, but it's well worth it. We were shooting at cans, and my friend placed a Coke can on top of a wooden fence railing -- the usual length of 3/4 inch board, firmly secured between two upright posts. I pulled the triggers. KABOOM. Wasn't knocked down but definitely went back on my heels, somewhat. No more can? Indeed -- no more can, no more board!

That's firepower.

Posted November 8, 2002 12:30 PM by Jack Womack

Yeah, I too used to be of the opinion they should all be banned. I'm still uncomfortable with the easy availability of the very dangerous tools. However my first husband owned guns and took me shooting. Apparently, I'm a natural. I hit the target first time and quickly became a better shot than he was. With hand guns that is; I wasn't worth shit with a long gun. My reaction to the Colt 45 was much like Teresa's and anyway the grip's too big for my hand. The 9mm Browning however, ah, what a lovely gun. A well-made gun is every bit as beautiful as any other well-made tool or machine. Jordin and I don't currently own guns, though I considered it on various occasions when he was gone so much. But if that gun thing happens at Boskone, count me it. I haven't fired one in years but I'd love to see if I can still hit a target.

MKK

Posted November 8, 2002 1:28 PM by Mary Kay

PS: Teresa--have you cut your hair? Or is it just bundled out of the way?

MKK

Posted November 8, 2002 1:31 PM by Mary Kay

Well, I'm a liberal, and I like to shoot guns (I am a good enough shot that I was on my high school's rifle team)...but I'd ban them in an instant, if for no other reason than the persistant political antics of the NRA that have prevented us from even trying any lesser tactic at controlling guns. Witness the post 9/11 Ashcroft protection of gun records from being looked at for links to terrorists, one of the few privacy protections this administration seems to recognize, along with Dick Cheney's contacts with energy lobbyists.

I have grown progressively more anti-gun over the last 20 years, and virtually all of this can be attributed to the actions of the NRA.

Posted November 8, 2002 2:18 PM by Rick Keir

Followed the link from Elise...

I would say I have mixed feelings on gun control - I can see both sides of the argument. They have a seductive appeal which worries me, but I can also see the argument that they are good for self-defense. FTR, I'm european(british), I've used small bore rifles for sport and semi and automatic rifles in military training; never fired a handgun.

But what worries me the most is the lack of control, especially of handguns and automatics, that I see in America. I guess I would advocate a driving style license (hell, maybe compulsory third-party and theft insurance too), and car style registration of guns, including test-fires.

Posted November 8, 2002 2:20 PM by Alexa

Having grown up in the gun culture, as it were, I find this blog entry and comment thread very interesting.

I've long sense come to grips, intellectually, with the fact that not everyone got a .22 when they were seven because the BB gun they got when they were five wasn't reliably stopping the hares that were supplementing the family table. (This really happened to me.)

Emotionally, however, I've never understood why people get so exited about guns.

I begin to suspect I have consistently underestimated the emotional power of unfamiliarity.

Posted November 8, 2002 2:46 PM by bacchus

Y'know, I continue to think that the terms of this debate are peculiar.

Shooting is, for a lot of people, fun. Driving is, for a lot of people, fun.

That doesn't mean they make a good analogy for each other; I would argue that they make a terrible analogy for each other, becuase the kinds of choice involved are very different.

Driving is about where you are, what kind of job you have, what kind of economy you live in, and how geographically distributed your social network can be and still share food on a not-inherently-a-special-occasion basis.

Guns are about why kind of fun you like to have, what you can hunt effectively, and whether or not you have a particular class of choices if you are assaulted. (Gun ownership *DOES NOT* confer political choice or political security in an industrial or post industrial culture.)

These things are not closely related in any way.

The common element -- you can hurt people with your car; you can hurt people with your gun -- is kinda bogus, too, since in an industrial culture there is this vastness of ways to be stupid or malicious and hurt someone.

What is used commonly and casually people stop thinking about as dangerous, as any number of incidents with lawnmowers, forks in toasters, and barbecue lighter fluid ought to demonstrate.

I don't think it makes any sense to license firearms, since there is no logistical practicality to it as an anti-crime measure. (Lots of guns already in circulation, lots of guns used in crimes known to have come from the local police force, no way to effectively suppress the existing black markets in firearms; as an anti-crime measure, it's pretty much useless.)

The problem isn't a weapon, anyway; it's the person. I've taught people to shoot I wouldn't willing give two chopsticks at the same time, and I've been entirely relaxed around people who can centre-of-mass man sized targets at a kilometer over iron sights (It may have helped that I was one of those people at the time.) This is the real problem with the debate in the US and elsewhere, I think; the issues are really trusting your neighbours and , and the rhetoric being about hardware obfusticates that.

Me, I learned firearm safety at five, and how to shoot at seven; I've used up many thousands of rounds of Her Majesty's ammunition, and haven't been shooting myself in years. I am not anything recognizeable on a US political spectrum as a liberal, though I've been known to vote for them. The people I've been scared of when they have firearms have primarly being uniformed agents of the US government, oddly enough. I really, really dislike confisticatory laws.

Oh, and I found the pictures charming.

Posted November 8, 2002 4:21 PM by Graydon

It was a delight to take you there, T., and have two editors and one author all shooting. It seemed ... apropos somehow.

Next time, definitely the shotgun. I wish they have shot, not just slugs, but it should be interesting all the same.

Posted November 8, 2002 4:56 PM by Nancy C. Hanger

Graydon -- you say there are people you have trained who you wouldn't trust with two chopsticks. My question would be why you trained them -- did you think you could make them behave more responsibly?

It's true the analogy between guns and cars falls down, but IMO not for the reasons you describe. Most cars are tools, or tool-hybrids (e.g., the MR2 my boss commutes in); most guns are toys (as Teresa's essay demonstrates), meaning they should be more liable to regulation. (I don't have figures for how many hunters eat what they kill -- but how many of them actually spend less money getting the meat than if they bought it at the supermarket?) The notion that having a gun gives you a choice when assaulted is usually false; it works if (a) you're lucky enough to get a stupid mugger who points a knife at you from three feet away and (b) you've practiced enough not just with the gun (which can be fun) but with dire situations (which isn't, from what I've seen of such practice).

The variation on the propaganda saying "guns don't kill people" is slightly more plausible. But, as several people have already commented here, the people who most want guns strike many of the rest of us as dangerous, and not just because they have sufficiently little wit to believe NRA propaganda about registration leading to confiscation.

Guns are power, and we all know what Lord Acton said about power. (I suppose "seductive" is a nicer word than "corrupting".)

And the notion that there's no point in control because of the number of guns out there is just as corrupting as the notion that there's no point in voting (which Teresa has dispatched effectively). It's not a cure-all, and I have no more respect for the few people who claim it is than I do for the many who claim that guns are generally effective self-defense -- but control, and severe control of the more destructive toys, is a start.

(No, I haven't been to a modern range. OTOH, I was excessively fond of amusement-park shooting ranges when young, and disappointed when pellet guns started replacing .22's -- but I was a lot younger then.)

Posted November 8, 2002 6:42 PM by Chip Hitchcock

Lord Acton was *wrong* about power.

The idea that he was right is at the root of a great deal of the evils of the 20th century, since no one is really *looking* for good ways to use power.

You're making a moral argument that says, basically, anything dangerous and not obviously economically useful should be strongly controlled to prevent misuse.

I am not sympathetic to this argument for three reasons.

Firstly, I think moral arguments have no place in public policy; only arguments which have quantifiable benefits should have a place there.
(No firearms control scheme has ever reduced gun crime. So they have a *huge* barrier to being percieved as an effective pragmatic solution.)

Secondly, you're prosposing to accept a reasoning that arbitrarily restricts choice to what is consensus-useful *AND* consensus-non-threatening; the historical record for such public policies is dismal, in large part because beneficial economic change is nearly always intially threatening and actually threatening to those economically dislocated. It's the same argument that concludes that monopolies like Qualcom are a good thing.

Thirdly, by the logic you've advanced, you want to ban *me*.

(I was teaching those people to shoot because that was what was on the training syllabus for that day, and among Her Majesty's Servants, one needs a better reason than 'I think this guy is unstable' to alter the training syllabus.)

Posted November 8, 2002 7:36 PM by Graydon

Count me in the seemingly-large collection of liberals who want gun control but are learning more about it. I still have not shot one, but a few months ago a dear friend showed me her collection and that in and of itself softened my jerking knee.

Part of the problem with the NRA/anti-NRA dipole is that folks like me who don't have direct, tactile experince with guns pick one side or the other. There is lots of middle ground here, clearly.

(Bummer: all the good gnu-control jokes were taken already!)

Posted November 8, 2002 8:06 PM by Paul Hoffman

Graydon writes,

What is used commonly and casually people stop thinking about as dangerous, as any number of incidents with lawnmowers, forks in toasters, and barbecue lighter fluid ought to demonstrate.

This is true, and is what makes me uncomfortable with some of Teresa's remarks:

It's more that they aren't familiar with guns, so they find them frightening and alien. ... They seem a lot more sinister and threatening until you get to know a few; and once you have one in the house, you can get downright defensive about them.

Posted November 8, 2002 8:38 PM by Simon Shoedecker

Shouldn't tommy gun be Tommy gun?

Posted November 8, 2002 10:05 PM by Clark Myers

Clark: well, technically. But don't you know that any usage employed by Teresa is ipso facto correct? Why, the OED guys check their usage notes by reading this weblog!

Ave Editrix Mundi. :-)

Posted November 8, 2002 10:25 PM by Christopher Hatton

No real quarrel with the usage but good writing will never persuade me the Blish lock was "one nice piece of design and engineering" granted that removing it improved the design. Liberal or conservative I expect folks to support the notion that "The goal of GNU was to give users freedom" Richard Stallman - wonder why more don't?

Posted November 8, 2002 11:58 PM by Clark Myers

I won't grant that removing the Blish lock improved the design, unless you call a decrease in accuracy and range an "improvement."

Posted November 9, 2002 5:32 AM by James D. Macdonald

You got to fire a Thompson, you lucky duck! At Conestoga this past summer, we took a bunch of the guests out to a firing range. Everybody got to fire an assortment of interesting weapons. The trip was so popular we're doing it again next year!

Posted November 9, 2002 9:34 AM by Tim Frayser

To Graydon:

My favorite analogy is between gun rights and abortion rights: the reason both are such heated topics is that they're both about letting individuals make life and death choices.

Thanks for the rant about why governments shouldn't be allowed to restrict things that people don't "need".

Posted November 9, 2002 10:54 AM by Nancy Lebovitz

Nancy:
Individuals make life and death choices all the time. Most people aren't comfortable thinking of it like that, though.

I am not objecting to governments restricting choice in the general case; I'm objecting to doing it on a basis of 'this is capable of having a bad outcome'. Which is what you said, only I'm uncomfortable with getting 'need' into the argument at all.

Simon Shoedecker:
There's a wide country between "commonly and casually" and "not familiar"; Teresa is talking about having something stop being strange, not about having it become the unmarked state in her life.

There are people who are casual about firearms; even in unfortunate cultural circumstances, this is rare, becuase you have to be really stupid not to notice that you can hurt yourself with this. Kinda like chainsaws that way.

Posted November 9, 2002 11:11 AM by Graydon

Now, I can perfectly well see how the NRA undoubtedly turns off people. Yet, it's true that in many other English-speaking countries, gun-control has proceeded much further. Their shooting organizations are much more moderate in tone than the NRA-- and have constantly lost. One could argue culture, but I'm not sure that Australia, for example, started out much differently on this issue.

Perhaps it has to do with the Parliamentary system being less democratic in general? Is it a similar situation to how the death penalty got banned in many Western countries, despite majority support for its legality?

Posted November 9, 2002 12:30 PM by John Thacker

Graydon: Sure, there's a difference, and I'm not expecting to see Teresa casually waving a gun around at sf conventions.

But there is a danger to which your remarks point (and despite the implication of your latest comment, you see it as a real danger, or you wouldn't have mentioned it the first time). And that is the road I see Teresa as taking the first steps down. Where Teresa sees herself as moving from fear to a sensible attitude, I see her as moving from sensible fear to a casual comfort level - if not as casual as the toaster-zappers you describe, then way too casual for comfort.

That may be a heavy burden to put on her remarks, but I've seen too many gun-owners - responsible gun-owners, who keep their guns locked up - who nevertheless talk as if guns aren't dangerous if you know how to use them.

Guys, a gun is a machine for killing people. It's dangerous. It's really, really dangerous.

I use dangerous tools myself. I drive cars. I cook, and use really sharp knives. I am very, very careful with these things. I don't wave them around, and I don't talk as if I would.

Posted November 9, 2002 12:57 PM by Simon Shoedecker

Greetings. I came to this site from Instapundit, drawn by this quote: "Basically, I figure guns are like gays: They seem a lot more sinister and threatening until you get to know a few; and once you have one in the house, you can get downright defensive about them." Excellent! May I borrow that?

As a member of the much-maligned NRA, I'd like to make a few comments, but first both essays written by Graydon, especially the one beginning with "Lord Acton was *wrong*!" very much represent the position of most members of the NRA. Are there really scary fringe elements in the NRA? Certainly there are. Many of them also belong to the GOA (Gun Owners of America) who think the NRA compromises too much.

Since Graydon did such an excellent job all I feel necessary to add is this: Alexa wrote "But what worries me the most is the lack of control, especially of handguns and automatics, that I see in America. I guess I would advocate a driving style license (hell, maybe compulsory third-party and theft insurance too), and car style registration of guns, including test-fires." Alexa being a Brit, doesn't this strike any of the rest of you as ironic? England licensed and registered all long guns and handguns (the legally owned ones, anyway), banned full-auto weapons about 1935, banned semi-automatic and pump-action rifles and shotguns in 1986, and banned all handguns in 1996 - using the licensing and registration system that they assured the populace was going to make them 'safer.' And it hasn't made them any safer. Now Australia is following in the same footsteps. Doesn't anyone learn from experience?

The difference between America and the rest of the world is the Second Amendment to our Constitution. The English Bill of Rights assured that the "subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law." Now, in any court in the British Commonwealth the subjects of the Crown are told that there are no weapons legally suitable for their defense, unless they're in the hands of govermnent officers. As far back as 1803, St. George Tucker in his law review text _American Blackstone_ wrote: "In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty."

So here since the late 50's there has been a concerted effort to convince the public that the right of individuals to possess arms is not what is protected by the Second Amendment. Yes, the NRA is considered extreme by many, but one of the few things Barry Goldwater ever said that I agree with is "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

We oppose licensing and registration not because it will inevitably lead to confiscation, but because the probabililty is too high, and disarming a law-abiding public without disarming the criminals (which is all that can be accomplished) is the exact wrong thing to do. Also, attempting licensing and registration here would make the current fiasco in Canada look like a little-league game.

Posted November 9, 2002 1:22 PM by Kevin Baker

I'm a gun owner, and I'd just like to chime in. Chip says above: The notion that having a gun gives you a choice when assaulted is usually false; it works if (a) you're lucky enough to get a stupid mugger who points a knife at you from three feet away and (b) you've practiced enough not just with the gun (which can be fun) but with dire situations (which isn't, from what I've seen of such practice).

I've been assaulted many times, sometimes with a gun on me, and sometimes not, sometimes on the street, and sometimes in home invasions. The simple fact is that having a gun in those situations is very, very much preferable to not having a gun. Yes, strenuous training for dire straits is helpful and unpleasant, but it is not strictly speaking necessary, especially in a home invasion situation.

As someone who has been there and done that, trust me, folks: defensive gun use is real and effective, particularly when compared to the alternative.

A gun is a machine for killing people, as Simon says. You can be placed, by other people, unexpectedly, in situations where you may need to kill someone, or at least be ready and willing to. When this happens, you want a gun. Kung fu won't cut it when you're outnumbered, injured, undertrained, old, or weak. Pepper spray is often a good choice, but it is not always enough.

Gun safety is ABSOLUTELY critical. There are four rules to remember always: all guns are always treated as if loaded. never let the gun point at anything you are unwilling to destroy. make sure of your target, and what is beyond it. finger off the trigger until ready to fire.

To secure a gun at home, use a gun safe with a simplex-type lock. Bolt it to the wall or the floor. This is secure enough to keep your guns away from children, will slow down burglars, and still allows you to get to your gun quickly when you need it. When there are people in your bedroom punching your wife in the face, you'll wish you'd kept the gun under your pillow instead of in a safe, but that's a damned if you do, damned if you don't.

On the political side, I oppose wholeheartedly any regulation that could later be used in a confiscatory way. I don't mind licensing gun OWNERS for public carry, for example, but I could not abide having them list their guns. I think that background checks are good, but that waiting periods are bad. I think that the NICS system presently used for background checks is needlessly slow, expensive, inaccurate, and too much like registration, and instead I support BIDS, a faster, cheaper, more accurate system that cannot be used to create a gun registry.

I think the NRA gets a bad rap. They pushed for the national background check system, they wrote the armor-piercing handgun bullet ban, they've pushed hard for strict enforcement of federal gun laws in the form of Project Exile. They have allowed their image to be dictated by their opponents. If you want a real no-compromise 100% pro-gun-at-any-price lobbying group, look at Gun Owners of America or Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

Posted November 9, 2002 1:48 PM by Jeff Paulsen

Kevin Baker:
"in any court in the British Commonwealth the subjects of the Crown are told that there are no weapons legally suitable for their defense"

This is pretty much completely wrong, irrespective of the degree to which various of the Commonwealth governments have confisticatory policies about weapons.

I think you're also incorrect about the 2nd ammendent, which has no legal standing in the US since your Supreme Court refuses to rule on it. There are large cultural differences, most notably a lack of national myths about overthrowing the government by force of arms.

Simon:
When I said 'what is used commonly and casually', that is precisely what I meant.

This does not happen with firearms to people who aren't line infantry in war zones. It doesn't even happen under frontier conditions -- none of which continue to exist anywhere on Earth -- or for people who are professional hunters.

It *does* happen with cars, toasters, arc welders, chain saws, and compressed gasses, plus all the other interesting increases in capability which come with an industrial civilization.

And, again, I reject the legitimacy of the argument from safety *without factual demonstration that the threat to life or health is of pressing concern*.

It's pretty much impossible to make this demonstration.

Even in those areas where there is a disproportionate amount of mayhem committed with firearms, the just response is not to impose measures calculated to a naive worst-case on an entire citizenry, for one, and for two, anything but the most naive analysis makes it clear that this violence is the product of social policies agressively promoted and pursued across the entire spectrum of American political representation.

I don't accept the argument from Constitutional ammendment, either; it is very foolish to treat one's Ur-law as though all the choice that is available to your society is the choice that existed when the ur-laws were first written.

I would have a lot more respect from the NRA if they campaigned for an end to the War on Drugs as a way to reduce firearm violence.

Posted November 9, 2002 2:01 PM by Graydon

Teresa:

You're right about the hydrostatic pressure and the pumpkin, but a little off the mark with the .45 comment. It's the muzzle velocity that creates the hydrostatic shock wave, not the size of the bullet. It's SOP in lots of basic training for instructors to pop holes in a watermelon with a kid's .22, then pick up an M-16 firing .223 ammo and on the first shot the pumpkin explodes. Actually firing M-16s was weird for me 'cause my dad's pellet gun had a similar kick . . . .

Couple of thoughts on the pro-gun and anti-gun forces. First, as seductive as the idea of banning all guns (or handguns) might be, in practice it's entirely unworkable. Just look at illegal drugs, for example. Any broad societal attempt to ban guns will only succeed in disarming the law-abiding citizenry. Making guns illegal won't get rid of them any more than outlawing marijuana or methamphetamine illegal got rid of those drugs.

Second, assume you did pass and enforce a ban on handguns. What would happen? Fortunately, there IS real-time evidence because Britain banned all handguns after the Dunblane massacre in 1996.

Joyce Lee Malcome of Harvard has done a lot of research into the results, and now ENGLAND HAS MORE VIOLENT CRIME PER CAPITA THAN AMERICA. I personally think the underestimates the influence of third world immigration on British rates of violent crime, but the conclusion is still very clear. Good stuff may be found here:

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/MALGUN.html

Posted November 9, 2002 2:10 PM by Anarchus

I just looked at the pictures - I think it's awesome that you have an INDOOR range that lets you use rifles, and Class III stuff.

Posted November 9, 2002 2:31 PM by Jeff Paulsen

Posted November 9, 2002 2:38 PM by Andy Freeman

Posted November 9, 2002 3:18 PM by Rossz

Oops, thought you were in the UK. I see now you are in Canada. My basic argument still applies, however.

Posted November 9, 2002 3:22 PM by Rossz

Posted November 9, 2002 3:33 PM by Stephen M. St. Onge

PS: I have a friend who spent time in prison for a serious offense. One of his cellmates was a former pimp who was locked up for fatally bludgeoning two of his hookers. Seems there was a huge dispute, so to get even with their pimp the hookers killed his pet doggie and put it in the freezer. Eventually he came home, missed the dog and found it in the freezer (after a hint or two, I'd guess). So, the angry pimp beat the two hookers to death with the frozen carcass.

And my friend now claims, "when frozen dogs are outlawed, only outlaws will have frozen dogs . . . :

Posted November 9, 2002 3:40 PM by Anarchus

>> But what worries me the most is the lack of control, especially of handguns and automatics

Automatics were essentially banned in the US in 1934. It didn't do any good, but

The recent furor is over guns that LOOK like automatics.

Posted November 9, 2002 3:47 PM by Andy Freeman

>> I would have a lot more respect from the NRA if they campaigned for an end to the War on Drugs as a way to reduce firearm violence.

Why is the war on drugs the NRA's responsibility?

Posted November 9, 2002 3:52 PM by Andy Freeman

Stephen says: Actually, guns only blow up rigid containers filled with liquid.

Human heads, for example?

Do you seriously believe that, if you fired guns regularly, you'd have an uncontrollable desire to shoot people with them. If so, why?

Hmm, you don't know me, so you don't know what urges I have (my close friends stay out of the kitchen when I'm chopping veggies). But no, not an uncontrollable urge. But if people can have guns without some check for competence and against a homicidal nature, then people who are incompetent and/or homicidal will be among those who have guns.

You have a point about gnu control, but what if they required to wear diapers and stay on a leash?
If only their owners can open the lock on the diaper, maybe. But I still think they should be registered and gene-tagged, so we can always tell which gnu was used in which crime, and who owns it, should the need arise. And if your gnu fertilizes someone's lawn because of your neglect, no more gnu license for you!

Posted November 9, 2002 5:17 PM by Christopher Hatton

Clark, Christopher, my usage is not ipso facto correct. It's probably a Tommy gun. I've been going through a years-long spell of being irritated by capitalization. I may get over it, like I got over my irritation at three dots vs. four.

Hmmm. Suddenly (or so it seems to me), there are fiftysomething comments in this discussion. I hope everyone's been behaving. Here I go to look...

Posted November 9, 2002 5:47 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Simon, of course guns are dangerous. I can't imagine losing track of that fact.

You should see me using a circular saw. I get everything set up, plug in the saw, take a deep breath, make my cut, turn off the saw, and unplug the saw again -- because if I'm not using it right now, I don't want it to be possible to switch it on.

The society in which I live puts heavy controls on some of the drugs that are prescribed for narcolepsy. When those are in my lineup, my life gets significantly more complicated and difficult. I've thought about this a lot while browsing in hardware stores. If I go to buy quick-setting concrete or a bottle of muriatic acid or some of 3M's more exciting aerosol adhesives, nobody ever asks me whether I know what I'm doing.

I enjoy blowing things up. I really do. It's great. But I don't do it very often, because there aren't many legit opportunities to do so, and I don't know enough to do it safely on my own.

Why did I go fire guns in Manchester? It was fun. It was cool. I was with a couple of friends who wanted to do it. Also Nancy and I, being professional editors, wanted to find out more about guns. They're forever turning up in fiction, and we like to get things right. Also, because I don't like having there be a class of objects in my world that are somehow more real, or less real, than other objects of comparable nature.

Posted November 9, 2002 6:12 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Some trimming has occurred. I apologize for not getting in here earlier in the day to do maintenance on an ongoing basis.

If I seriously disliked your post and the spirit in which it was posted, it went away. If I thought it was honest but regrettable, its text went away -- and I'm open to the possibility that I was wrong. Get me even halfway convinced and I'll put it back.

I like conversation. I've heard most of the loud arguments, intelligent and otherwise. The loud ones here weren't dumb, and I have nothing against them per se. But there are interesting things to be said about guns and American life that don't get said because nobody can hear them over the background noise.

Posted November 9, 2002 6:22 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

How very lucky you are to have been in the "live free or die" state to experience firearms for the first time. Here in the "golden state" we aren't allowed to even think about Tommy Guns, let alone firing one down at the local range. As a Firearms Dealer (FFL and all the local stuff too), I would say to those who think that there are no controls on firearm acquisition: go out to your local gun store and try to buy a handgun, then tell me how easy it was. As to the common car versus gun licensing comparison: You don't need a license to BUY a car, only to drive it on public roads. To Her Majesty's Servent: The Supreme Court has addressed the 2nd Ammendment several times, and there is no support in their work for the "state militia" theory of ownership. In fact, in several opinions, the 2nd has been specifically included in listings of specific, individual rights noted in the Bill Of Rights. As an NRA Life Member, I sometimes find the group too accomodating, and sometimes too strident. But, we don't agree with everything in our lives all the time, do we?

Posted November 9, 2002 7:51 PM by Drew Kelley

The NRA-ILA (Institute for Legislative Action) really isn't structured to try and convince those on the fence to be pro-RKBA, since its' main goal is to act as a lobbying force for gun-owners. From my point of view, I think it's better for the NRA to be feared as a political force, rather than liked.

Really, the two groups you should try and contact would be the National Shooting Sports Foundation (www.nssf.org), which offers a program specifically for non-shooting writers/journalists and the Pink Pistols (www.pinkpistols.org), which is a group of gay and lesbian gun-owners.

(aside: the PP's have encountered more hostility from the gay/lesbian community than the shooting community. If you shoot, most people don't give a rats' ass about your race, sex, political party, or sexual orientation.)

If you do plan to shoot a shotgun, try to shoot light trap loads out of a gas-operated semi-auto. Launching a 12-gauge slug out of a pump is a memorably painful experience.

Posted November 9, 2002 7:59 PM by flinch

To Graydon:

"...in any court in the British Commonwealth the subjects of the Crown are told that there are no weapons legally suitable for their defense"

"This is pretty much completely wrong, irrespective of the degree to which various of the Commonwealth governments have confisticatory policies about weapons."

I may have overstated, but it is the fact in England and Wales, and certainly seems to be going that way in Australia. What are the rules concerning self-defense with a weapon in Scotland and Northern Ireland? So, completely wrong? I think not.

"I think you're also incorrect about the 2nd ammendent, which has no legal standing in the US since your Supreme Court refuses to rule on it. There are large cultural differences, most notably a lack of national myths about overthrowing the government by force of arms."

Well, yes, since the 1939 U.S. v Miller case, the Supreme Court has dodged the bullet, so to speak. However, the most recent decision of an appeals court having to do with the Second Amendment has made it plain that the right is considered an individual one, and the Supreme Court did not overturn. Now the problem is to get the Supreme Court to concur, and further, to incorporate the Second Amendment under the protections of the 14th's "priviledges and immunities" clause.

I wouldn't say that the Second has "no legal standing." We're hopeful.

"I don't accept the argument from Constitutional ammendment, either; it is very foolish to treat one's Ur-law as though all the choice that is available to your society is the choice that existed when the ur-laws were first written."

There we disagree rather violently (pun intended.) The "ur-law" of the Constitution is the framework our society is built upon. It is the concept that we government of law, rather than a government of men. Yours seems to be the argument of a "living Constitution," to be "interpreted" as society changes. Um, no. That's not how it works. The Constitution has built into it a mechanism to change it as required. That mechanism is cumbersome and difficult - for a reason. Since its acceptance (along with the original 10 amendments,) we've modified that framework seventeen times. We freed the slaves, ensured equal rights to all citizens (or at least tried,) extended franchise to women and those 18 and older, outlawed alcohol (very similar to the "war on (some) drugs" and the war on guns), repealed that prohibition, and so on. So far, we've made one, possibly two mistakes using that mechanism.

If we allow ourselves to "interpret" what the Second Amendment means based on modern exigencies, then the entire structure is open to similar reinterpretation. If that's the case, it is no longer a framework, but a house of cards waiting for collapse. The Constitution must be interpreted based on its original intent. If it no longer addresses the modern facts, we can amend it. But to ignore the original intent simply because it's inconvenient risks disaster.

"I would have a lot more respect from the NRA if they campaigned for an end to the War on Drugs as a way to reduce firearm violence."

So would I, but it is an overwhelmingly conservative organization. There is a slowly building conservative movement to end the War on Drugs, but "slow" is the critical word. For the time being, I'll be happy if the NRA simply opposes each and every new "commonsense" gun control law. My position is "this far, no further" until the Second Amendment is legally recognized and defined by the Supreme Court.

Posted November 9, 2002 8:52 PM by Kevin Baker

Drew, I grew up in Arizona, where it's only illegal to carry a concealed weapon, and you check your piece at the front desk of your hotel.

Flinch, what do you mean by the NRA acting as "a lobbying force for gun-owners"? I mean, who's it lobbying? Is it just legislators? Because if any of its efforts are meant to influence members of the general public who didn't start out having an opinion one way or the other, Rick Keir's reaction (vide supra) has been pretty typical.

John Farrell, I wouldn't bet a nickel on our chances of setting up a shooting area at Boskone. Hotels are so twitchy about activities that might damage the rooms that you usually can't get them to let you do an airbrush demo. But wouldn't it be fun to do it in the heart of Boston?

Posted November 9, 2002 9:30 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Jack, Graydon, deeply appreciated. As always.

Posted November 9, 2002 9:36 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Teresa said Clark, Christopher, my usage is not ipso facto correct.

I wuz teeeeeeezing!

Posted November 9, 2002 10:37 PM by Christopher Hatton

Teresa, I'd forgotten that you are narcoleptic. I don't know how severe your case is, but if necessary I trust there was someone around to watch out for you while you were shooting.

And likewise when you use concrete or aerosol adhesive (both potentially deadly, but much less dangerous than guns). It's good that you don't get stopped from using these things, but after all there are warning labels on almost everything these days.

I understand your reasons for trying shooting, but still - as comfortable with guns as with gays? I was comfortable around gays from the minute I discovered I was around gays, but I don't think I'm comfortable around guns (or gnus), and I think I prefer it that way. It's safer.

Graydon wrote, 'used commonly and casually' ... does not happen with firearms to people who aren't line infantry in war zones.

Mike Royko is no longer around to write stories about gunowners who shoot their toes off, who are accidentally shot by their dogs, etc. But it still happens, and your confidence that no fools treat guns the way some fools treat toasters, arc welders, etc., seems to me entirely misplaced.

Kevin Paulsen: I have seen before your argument that having a gun is advisable, rather than inadvisable, for the victim of a holdup. I am wondering - in a purely practical sense - how much skill with a gun is needed in that situation to ensure 1) that your skill at wielding the gun exceeds the mugger's skill in getting it away from you, whether he is armed or not; 2) that, if you do need to shoot it, no innocent person is likely to be hurt. Also I wonder if psychological studies of armed robbers exist to show that being confronted by a gun does not make him more likely to shoot first.

Posted November 9, 2002 11:16 PM by Simon Shoedecker

Simon: I assume you are talking to me above, and that Kevin is a typo for Jeff.

You have to be very, very, good at disarming someone to avoid being shot by them in the process. In practice, when you draw a gun, people run from you. If they don't, fire the gun at them, and they run from you, or fall down.

I have no data on your second question, but remember that most assaults occur where there are not a whole lot of bystanders. Also, unintended damage caused by overpenetration (shooting through your attacker or a wall and hitting someone else) can be reduced by using special bullets, like the Glaser Safety Slug. Most features of bullets that reduce overpenetration also increase the transfer of energy from the bullet to the target - which is to say, they are more lethal.

It has been my experience that armed robbers will change their selection of victim if they suspect their first choice might be packing.

Posted November 10, 2002 12:06 AM by Jeff Paulsen

>> But if people can have guns without some check for competence and against a homicidal nature, then people who are incompetent and/or homicidal will be among those who have guns.

True, but irrelevant.

The relevant question is whether law can disarm the homicidal. (The incompetent are irrelevant. Yes, I know the accident stats.)

The answer appears to be "no". We see that in both experience with such laws AND the fact that guns are not particularly magic so the drug war experience is relevant.

That being the case, the question becomes "is there some benefit to disarming the non-homicidal." Again, the answer appears to be "no".

Posted November 10, 2002 12:30 AM by Andy Freeman

The NRA acts on behalf of gunowners, basically rewarding politicians for pro-RKBA stances, and punishing those who don't back the official position.

It's a special interest group that operates much like any other. It's feared because it can generate a hellacious amount of mail, money, and votes (yes, gun-nuts do read the paper, follow the issues, and can show up in droves at the polling place).

I see Rick's point, but the problem is more of perception, rather than policy.

Gun-control groups need a certain level of uncertainty to succeed.

The general message is: "We don't have enough laws," which is usually followed by some sort of hysterical silliness ("It's easier to buy an Evil Baby Killing Uberblaster than a pint of milk"). Most people outside of the gun culture have no idea of the insane number of laws and paperwork that has to be dealt with when buying a gun.

To the non-shooter, it sounds common-sense when Sarah Brady talks about Evil Cop Killer Bullets(tm) and how they have no place in society.

The problem was that the definition was so broad as to encompass almost every hunting caliber.

Most bullet-resistant vests were NEVER designed to stop rifle rounds. Most cops wear vests rated against pistol rounds; the rifle-grade armor is bulky and heavy, and only used during high-risk operations (SWAT, mainly). Even the lowly 22LR can punch right through a Level II/IIa vest.

If the definition says, "penetrates body armor," every hunter just got stuck with a flintlock.

The NRA, naturally, fought like hell against it. Of course, that position sounds absolutely insane. Eventually, the bill was reworded with the help of the NRA to only include handgun bullets made of tungsten, depleted uranium, or other ultra-dense material that would zip right through commonly used body armor.

The NRA is always in a defensive position, simply because most people don't have the experience or knowledge to separate the useful gun laws (very few) from the stupid ones (most of them). The NRA has to explain the boring, technical aspects, while the gun-control groups can toss out their sound bites ("Ban assault weapons.")

Hopefully, this makes some sort of sense.

Posted November 10, 2002 1:14 AM by flinch

It would be great fun to do it in the heart of Boston - the land of Bartley-Fox and the Lifetime Firearms Identification Card that is valid for 4 years only and currently costs only $25 -"To make inexpensive guns impossible to get is to say that you're putting a money test on getting a gun. It's racism in its worst form." says one NRA Board Memeber but that has not been enough and Boston proper has even more odd and silly laws in which the locals seem to have great faith. Indeed this discussion leads me to believe that where guns are concerned people prefer arguing about whose revelation is correct, what is behind the veil, to passing through the veil or looking at the fruits which at least in this case is quite easily done. I wonder if I am alone in this group in knowing that I can put my hand on a gun even as I type?

Posted November 10, 2002 5:55 AM by Clark E Myers

I wouldn't know, Clark. Do crossbows count?

I'll agree that gun discussions tend to devolve into arguments about whose revelation is correct. That's why I've been writing and asking about personal experiences. There are profound differences in the ways people talk about their own experiences of guns. I find that very interesting in its own right; also in the ways it correlates with their opinions about guns and public policy.

Hmmm. I just figured out why I felt moved to post one of my favorite bits of George Fox last night.

Posted November 10, 2002 10:47 AM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Jeff (sorry, I must have forgotten your name while scrolling down to write my previous reply) Paulsen wrote,

You have to be very, very, good at disarming someone to avoid being shot by them in the process.

And how much role does the coolness and skill of the gun-wielder play in this? I have no experience with guns, but I find my skill in handling anything diminishes sharply under extreme stress, and I would guess the rare experience of confronting a robber with a gun would cause extreme stress.

I realize that movies are not a good guide to reality. But a cool-headed person taking a gun away from a non-cool person happens frequently in movies, and I've not seen this scenario in lists of Improbable Movie Gun Events, such as "6-shooters that never need to be reloaded" or "People getting shot, getting up and running away" or "22s with the knock-down power of cannons" or many others.

Another scenario, probably more common than the first: the gun-owner is probably not constantly carrying the gun around as a concealed, or unconcealed, weapon. Gun safety advocates are constantly saying, keep your guns locked up. So: you're at home, a robber breaks into your house. How likely is it that you can get the gun before the robber gets you? (Again, under conditions of extreme stress: you're probably fumbling with the lock.) Or if the gun is not locked up, but not on your person constantly, how likely is it that the robber (possibly previously unarmed) will grab the gun before you do? Or, if he burgles the house while you're away, that he'll just steal the gun?

In practice, when you draw a gun, people run from you.

This is a real scenario, not a movie one: 1) Police spot fugitive. 2) Police draw guns on fugitive. Does fugitive run away? No. 3) Fugitive draws gun on police, fires it, and misses. 4) Police shoot fugitive, kill him instantly.

This happens all the time. I read newspaper reports regularly. It's almost predictable.

It has been my experience that armed robbers will change their selection of victim if they suspect their first choice might be packing.

That's another one I wonder about. A person of your general persuasion once proudly announced to me that her father's store, once a regular site of hold-ups, had not had a single hold-up after he bought a gun. And I asked, how did he get the word around to the criminal community that he had one? I never got an answer to that. Maybe he carried it conspicuously. Maybe he got a sticker for his window akin to a burglar alarm sticker. Maybe he took out an ad in the Criminal Times. Maybe he just told all suspicious-looking customers, "Hey, did you know I have a gun?" I don't know.

Posted November 10, 2002 11:55 AM by Simon Shoedecker

Clark asked: "I wonder if I am alone in this group in knowing that I can put my hand on a gun even as I type?"

Perhaps. I'd have to stand up and walk to the other side of the room to put my hand on a firearm.

Posted November 10, 2002 1:10 PM by James D. Macdonald

Kevin:
"...in any court in the British Commonwealth the subjects of the Crown are told that there are no weapons legally suitable for their defense"

Graydon replied:
"This is pretty much completely wrong, irrespective of the degree to
which various of the Commonwealth governments have confiscatory policies about weapons."

Kevin again:
I may have overstated, but it is the fact in England and Wales, and certainly seems to be going that way in Australia. What are the rules
concerning self-defense with a weapon in Scotland and Northern Ireland? So, completely wrong? I think not.

Those aren't members of the Commonwealth, that's the United Kingdom, which is a single member of the Commonwealth.

Australia has banned handguns pretty thoroughly; they have certainly not banned long arms, and your right of self defense there (last I
looked) and your right of self defense in Canada (I'm quite sure) have a least sufficient means test in it if it gets in front of a court,
but one is emphatically *not* forbidden to use weapons is self defense.

And, you know, the Commonwealth includes a huge chunk of Africa, India and so on; it's very hard to generalize about the laws in a hundred-odd countries which range in size from 'flyspeck' to 'immense'.

Kevin:
I wouldn't say that the Second has "no legal standing." We're hopeful.

If you can't get a court to rule on the basis of it, it's not a right.

Me:
"I don't accept the argument from Constitutional amendment, either; it is very foolish to treat one's Ur-law as though all the choice that
is available to your society is the choice that existed when the ur-laws were first written."

Kevin:
If we allow ourselves to "interpret" what the Second Amendment means based on modern exigencies, then the entire structure is open to
similar reinterpretation.

The entire structure *has* been reinterpreted; the interstate commerce clause was *not* intended as the basis for the powers of the Federal gov't you've got! The Framers' take on the First Amendment would have thrown out any constraint on the private use of cryptography,
too. There are a lot more examples.

There's an argument that the universal suffrage amendments are doing the right thing by being formal amendments, when the majority of the
Framers hated and feared warm body democracy -- which is why they used republican forms -- but there is also the argument that you can't do
something quite that radical and pretend that it doesn't affect the rest of the structure, so that the other amendements *now* mean is
different. Which is certainly what eventually happened with the 14th Amendment.

Kevin:
If that's the case, it is no longer a framework, but a house of cards waiting for collapse.

Which is pretty much what it's doing in terms of personal freedoms, and has been for some time, no? Some subset of said person freedoms
being what you are complaining about?

Kevin:
The Constitution must be interpreted based on its original intent. If it no longer addresses the modern facts, we can amend it. But to
ignore the original intent simply because it's inconvenient risks disaster.

It's not just facts; it's scope of choice. There are bunches of things about which your Framers *can't* have had intent, because they
had no idea such a thing could be done; everyone acknowledges this.

What everyone does not acknowledge is that the number of ways in which society can be (and actually is observed to be) organized has gone up, too. An argument which ignores this or dismisses this is obviously off in Theory, where everything works.

Simon:
Graydon wrote, 'used commonly and casually' ... does not happen with firearms to people who aren't line infantry in war zones.

Mike Royko is no longer around to write stories about gun owners who shoot their toes off, who are accidentally shot by their dogs, etc.
But it still happens, and your confidence that no fools treat guns the way some fools treat toasters, arc welders, etc., seems to me entirely misplaced.

People do stupid things with guns. The stupid things people do with guns are often related to treated them as a high-mana object
_incompetently_. (I can't recall an incident in which this *wasn't* the case; I'm not saying that there aren't any, but I can't recall
one. Even the drunken morons out taking 'sound shots' in deer season are doing that.)

Teaching people to shoot involves dealing with this; severe nervousness often results for no very good reason. Which is why teaching people to shoot properly generally involves lots and lots and lots of familiarization before any shooting happens, what with calm being essential to shooting effectively and all.

So the general fix for the 'high mana object' part is to make guns not *be* high-mana objects; this involves having people clean them in
large numbers when young and impressionable, even more than it involves having them fire them.

There are cultural changes which involve most people not having that experience, starting about forty years ago, and that does have
something to do with the current gun control movement.

Also, the _frequency_ with which people do stupid things with guns is way, way less than the frequency with which they do stupid things with power tools, motor vehicles, and flamable liquids.

I think this is why.

There's a principle in cybernetics -- the old kind, not the digital computer kind -- which says 'the purpose of a system is what that
system does'; this gets ignored around firearms. The DCRA shoots that involve a bunch of people getting together for a weekend to compete
are *for* that; Teresa's going to a range and finding out that, hey, these things are fun was *for* that -- and that _range_ is *for* that,
too.

Looked at proportionately, there's a better argument that cars are *for* killing people than that firearms are. (I think any such argument is bogus, btw.)

Put slightly differently, a capability isn't immoral; a use of the capability may or may not be, but being able to is not itself morally
meaningful. (How you got that way might be, but having the ability is as morally meaningful as having green hair.)

Posted November 10, 2002 1:26 PM by Graydon

>> Again, under conditions of extreme stress: you're probably fumbling with the lock.

Interestingly enough, they design locks for precisely this purpose. They open when you stick your hand in. Not to mention the fact that lots of people don't live with children, so it's perfectly reasonable for them to have a gun available that is not locked up.

Also, you're assuming that the homeowner has absolutely no warning, that the intruder suddenly appears in the same room. I'm sure that that happens, but the more common case involves "Did you hear that? Let's call the police."

After you call the police, what do you do?

Posted November 10, 2002 2:33 PM by Andy Freeman

>> It has been my experience that armed robbers will change their selection of victim if they suspect their first choice might be packing.

> That's another one I wonder about.

Well, we can always do a relevant test.

If you put "this house is a gun-free zone" sign on your door/in front of your house, do you think that you increase or decrease the odds that you'll have an unwelcome intruder?

In the US, about half of all dwellings contain a gun, so such a sign changes the odds from 50-50 to "would this person lie to me?".

Posted November 10, 2002 2:37 PM by Andy Freeman

Graydon!

Absolutely outstanding response! (And I'm not used to those!) Yes, I was aware that England and Wales is considered a single entity - where defending yourself with a weapon is likely to get you jailed. You didn't comment on Scotland or N. Ireland, I noted. Australia has not yet banned handguns but is about to.

"If you can't get a court to rule on the basis of it, it's not a right."

A point I've tried repeatedly to get many on the gun-rights side to understand. We've had a recent victory with the U.S. v Emerson ruling of last year, but it was not all we had hoped. There are now cases in lower courts we have hopes for, and seeing that the administration is making mouth-noises in support of an individual right - specifically the Justice Department - and seeing that the House, Senate, and Whitehouse are all Republican controlled, there is some hope that the judicial system may follow suit. It took us over 50 years to get to this point. There is no reason to believe that the steps back from the edge of the slippery slope will occur much faster.

"The entire structure *has* been reinterpreted; the interstate commerce clause was *not* intended as the basis for the powers of the Federal gov't you've got!

Precisely! So few people understand that. The Constitution has been hacked away at for 226 years, and the damage seems to be accelerating. Especially the infringements on the 4th and 5th Amendments (and now the 1st) in the name of the "War on (some) Drugs," and now the "War on Terror." Many of us, however, have chosen the attack on the 2nd Amendment as the "line in the sand," that "subset of person(al) freedoms" being a critical one, in our view. (Not that the others are not critical, but the Second leaves very little "wiggle room" when it comes to upholding our enumerated individual rights.) The Second Amendment, to us, is a crystal-clear dividing line between those in government who trust the citizenry (whom they supposedly work for) and those who wish to rule over us.

"...but there is also the argument that you can't do something quite that radical and pretend that it doesn't affect the rest of the structure, so that the other amendements *now* mean is different. Which is certainly what eventually happened with the 14th Amendment."

Hmm... I'm not quite sure I follow you here. Indulge me if I misinterpreted your meaning. Do subsequent Amendments alter the structure of the Constitution? Yes, of course they do. Did the 14th Amendment significantly alter the intention of the Constitution? Absolutely. Was it intentional? Absolutely. Was that intent followed by the States and by the Courts immediately following its passage? Absolutely not. The 14th Amendment is probably the most significant alteration of the design of our government in history - it radically expanded the power of the Federal government over the states - in large part that was what the Civil War was about. The 14th Amendment codified it. It also, for good or bad, gave enormous power to the federal judiciary.

That power has been used to "interpret" the Bill of Rights in ways that would probably leave the Founders whirling in their crypts, but being a nation based in law we've abided by those interpretations and not risen up in violent rebellion over them. Instead, those of us who are politically active have worked to get many of those interpretations reversed. Thus the ACLU in defense of nine of the first ten Amendments, and the NRA for the one the ACLU disdains. We've not been entirely successful, but we are, as I've said, hopeful.

"It's not just facts; it's scope of choice. There are bunches of things about which your Framers *can't* have had intent, because they
had no idea such a thing could be done; everyone acknowledges this."

However, because they "had no idea such a thing could be done" does not mean that the fundamental groundrules cannot be used to address these new things. Case-in-point: the question of civilian ownership of fully-automatic weapons. Certainly the Founders had no idea such weapons could exist, but it is apparent from their writings that the intent of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the People were never denied arms suitable for military use. Many may argue that the 1934 National Firearms Act didn't deny the People this right, but in point of fact, many states and localities DO. The 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" was another attempt to restrict "weapons of military usefulness" from the People - on a Federal scale. Many of us consider these laws unconstitutional - and still abide by them while hoping to overturn.

"What everyone does not acknowledge is that the number of ways in which society can be (and actually is observed to be) organized has gone up, too. An argument which ignores this or dismisses this is obviously off in Theory, where everything works." I'm not sure what relevance this observation has to this discussion. Care to expound on it?

"...a capability isn't immoral; a use of the capability may or may not be, but being able to is not itself morally meaningful."

An apochryphal story making the rounds recounts an interview between a journalist and the operator of a summer camp. The camp operator lists the various activities available to the young campers, and included in this list is rifle marksmanship. The journalist is aghast at this news. In a properly indignant tone, she admonishes the camp operator that he is "equipping the children to be murderers," to which he responds: "You're 'equipped' to be a prostitute. Does that make you one?"

I've always liked that story.

Posted November 10, 2002 3:11 PM by Kevin Baker

I have an idea -- at Boskone, why not organize an expedition to the Manchester shooting range? It's about an hour north of the hotel.

Posted November 10, 2002 3:46 PM by James D. Macdonald

Simon wrote: "This is a real scenario, not a movie one: 1) Police spot fugitive. 2) Police draw guns on fugitive. Does fugitive run away? No. 3) Fugitive draws gun on police, fires it, and misses. 4) Police shoot fugitive, kill him instantly.

This happens all the time. I read newspaper reports regularly. It's almost predictable."

And how often does it happen that the fugitive sees the cops with their guns drawn and either flees or surrenders? Without that knowledge, you really can't draw a conclusion from those newspaper reports. (Not that I particularly believe that cops are great shots -- remember Bruce Springsteen's "41 Shots" and the events that inspired it? -- or that most fugitives in that case die instantly.)

Posted November 10, 2002 4:19 PM by Josh

Mmmmm. I bet you'd like shooting replica historic weapons, like Revolutionary muzzle-loaders and Civil War rifles. Really quite amazing, the technical changes between the two!

Which, I suppose, brings up one of my big bitches about so much rhetoric in this area; there is some really aggravating rewriting of history. The militia did not win the Revolution. The Framers did not have the rifles of the Civil War in mind when they wrote the second amendment. Personal self-defense with a muzzle loader would be quite a dicey proposition.

Posted November 10, 2002 4:30 PM by Randolph Fritz

>> The Framers did not have the rifles of the Civil War in mind when they wrote the second amendment.

I'd be much more impressed with this argument if it was ever used for any other bit of technology.

BTW - The Framers actually did know about repeating firearms because such firearms existed at least as early as the 1600s.

>> Personal self-defense with a muzzle loader would be quite a dicey proposition.

Huh? Folks used muzzle loaders for self-defense before cartridges were invented.

Of course, self-defense is always a dicey proposition; you might lose. Then again, no-defense is also dicey - someone who's said that your life is worth less to him than the unknown contents of your wallet doesn't value your life very much.

However, having an option that you can choose not to use is much better than not having an option that you need.

Posted November 10, 2002 5:29 PM by Andy Freeman

So far as I know crossbows do not fall under the firearms laws but are specifically not legal to take game. Nice to contemplate a Con that is not weapons free - though of course I have been amused by the hall costume that includes a one piece hilt and scabbard to avoid the peace tie on a blade when I know the bearer is big on Kendo - or the wizard's staff that passes for a Bo or ..... More generally I wonder if folks who just moved from say California where possession (word of art) of a sword cane is a mandatory 1 year in jail to say Washington State where such blades are essentially unregulated (actual use as a weapon is) feel they have taken a great risk.

Posted November 10, 2002 6:07 PM by Clark E Myers

Contradictions and paradoxes invariably appear given fine enough granularity - Garands for instance are easier to buy and much cheaper in Canada than in the United States (in the U.S. get yours from CMP while you still can) - still the late word from the U.K. (Beeb Wednesday, 6 November, 2002, 16:51 GMT) speaks to me of the situation there:
Blair points to airgun crackdown
"Incidents involving air weapons are rising
Tony Blair has given a clear hint that legislation for airguns may be included in next week's Queen Speech as part of a major crackdown on anti-social behaviour.
....
We are looking at the whole issue of the licensing of airguns
Tony Blair
Such guns should be licensed and kept under lock and key
Judge Peter Fox QC
............
The prime minister told the House of Commons the government had "something to announce" on the issue, "in the next period of time".
....
Downing Street has already declared war on anti-social behaviour such as fly posting, dropping chewing gum and graffiti.

Posted November 10, 2002 6:25 PM by ClarkEMyers

Andy Freeman, "Folks used muzzle loaders for self-defense before cartridges were invented." Are you referring to personal self-defense, here? Could you give an example, please? It's difficult for me to see how a weapon which takes a well-drilled solider 20 seconds to load and fire could be used for personal self-defense; by the time you'd gotten the dern thing loaded, you'd be run through. A flintlock is unreliable at best (I've read that bandits preferred to carry an extra pistol, in case of misfires), it fails if wet, and it becomes even more dangerously unreliable if left loaded. Do you have a reliable primary source citation, or secondary source cite which cites its primary sources for the personal use of either flintlock muskets or pistols in self-defense? Something which indicates it might be something to rely on, rather than something which might in rare circumstances be useful?

Posted November 10, 2002 7:46 PM by Randolph Fritz

Randolph:

That's a question I would submit to Clayton Cramer: clayton@claytoncramer.com

I'm sure he could answer it, in detail.

Posted November 10, 2002 8:56 PM by Kevin Baker

1. Okay, so how many people here can walk across the room and put their hand on a Martini-Henry?

2. Yes, Kevin. Graydon is like that.

3.
BULLWINKLE: Hey Rocky, watch me pull the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution out of my hat!"
ROCKY: Again? But that trick never works.
BULLWINKLE: This time for sure! (Reaches into hat, pulls out head of Randolph Fritz.)
HEAD OF RANDOLPH FRITZ: Gronk!
ROCKY: And now here's something we hope you'll really like!
(cue music, cut to commercial)

Posted November 10, 2002 11:31 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Shooting during Boskone: I was going to suggest that we go early on Sunday, but the place doesn't open until noon. Driving up Saturday afternoon to catch Jim after he gets out of his paramedic classes would work if there weren't a Tor party that night. Other times have other problems. Got any ideas?

Posted November 11, 2002 1:24 AM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Quickfire technique was five shots a minute - see e.g. the discussion surrounding Ferguson's innovations - A leather cover sometimes called a calf leg was commonly used to keep the powder dry.For typical discussions where there might be room to argue about the personal vs. the group see e.g.:

de Hass, Dr. Willis. History of the Early Settlement and Indian Wars of Western Virginia.
Hardesty. The History of Gilmer County.
McWhorter, Lucullus V. The Border Settlers of Northwestern Virginia.
Withers, Alexander Scott. Chronicles of Border Warfare.

Certainly individuals used personal weapons as individuals rather than part of a fireteam throughout the time and place
From Muzzleblasts:

One of the last accounts we have of Jesse Hughes' remarkable abilities and talent is contained, once again, in McWhorter's The Border Settlers of Northwestern Virginia (pp. 206 and 207). This heart-pounding incident took place in 1793, and reads like a fight scene from The Last of the Mohicans:

"The following fall, the Indians killed and devoured a cow that belonged to Jesse Hughes. They carried away with them the bell that the cow wore. One afternoon they rattled this bell on the mountainside above the fort. Some said to Jesse that his cow was coming home. He knew, however that she had been killed, and he replied that he would 'make the bell ring for something the next morning'. That night he hid himself on the mountain where he had heard the bell ringing that afternoon. As soon as it was light enough to see to shoot he heard the bell once again, and he cautiously made his way in the direction of the sound. Having gone but a short distance, he discovered two Indians, one large, one smaller in size. The big Indian was standing with his gun raised, ready for instant use, and the smaller one was going about on his hands and knees, with the bell on his neck, rattling it like a cow would if grazing in the woods. Hughes shot the big Indian and the small one ran. Jesse dropped his gun, grabbed the one belonging to the dead Indian and pursuing the other Indian, soon came up with him and shot him. The gun Hughes had taken from the fallen Indian was discovered as belonging to Benjamin Carpenter (killed by the same two Indians that spring) and it along with the powder horn and shot pouch were returned to the Carpenters." See also Foxfire V for stories and how to

Posted November 11, 2002 1:41 AM by ClarkEMyers

Another way of looking at the framing of discussion here is to consider that some, myself for one, are willing to argue at a much finer level of granularity than we have knowledge to support. In other areas we might acknowledge ignorance and even seek real experts. For instance in Glory Season David Brin acknowledges input on the biology from a W.S.U. veterinary couple - folks who have been willing to shoot in defence of their sheep too. Yet in another place Brin suggests SF what if stories ought to address such things as the driver's license model of licensing gun owners and shooters with no suggestion that the Illinois FOID card the FID mentioned above and other such have a real current track record. Restrictions be they based on revelation or common sense - the "this time for sure" model of the slippery slope - seem to be advocated in ignorance of the record. Folks argue for the vague driver's license analogy rather than acknowledge the failed specifics in Illinois and Massachusets and advocate some refinement that addresses those failures.

Posted November 11, 2002 1:59 AM by Clark E Myers

>> Folks used muzzle loaders for self-defense before cartridges were invented." Are you referring to personal self-defense, here? Could you give an example, please?

You mean like naming ancestors who killed/drove off an attacker?

The "early frontier" literature is filled with such accounts. Bellesiles claimed otherwise, which is one of the things that brought him to Cramer's attention.

>> It's difficult for me to see how a weapon which takes a well-drilled solider 20 seconds to load and fire could be used for personal self-defense; by the time you'd gotten the dern thing loaded, you'd be run through.

So what? Surely Fritz isn't assuming:
(1) that you only need self defense when all of your guns are necessarily unloaded; and
(2) that "complete and immediate surprise" is the only situation where self-defense is appropriate.

(2) is clearly false. People often have some advance notice that they're about to be a situation where they might need effective self-defense. Why assume that they wouldn't use this time to do something relevant?[A]

Fritz seems to be assuming (1).

>> A flintlock is unreliable at best (I've read that bandits preferred to carry an extra pistol, in case of misfires), it fails if wet, and it becomes even more dangerously unreliable if left loaded.

"fails if wet" - Why is Fritz assuming that they wouldn't use somewhat effective counter-measures?[B]

"dangerously unreliable if left unloaded" assumes that it's been left loaded for "a while". One might reasonable prep the gun