It’s worth noting that you could make slidefire stocks and belt-feed adapters for many types of semi-auto rifles.  The AR-15 is just popular enough to justify the marketing of such items.  This is my original point, you’re just harping on one particular firearm that just happens to be popular an in “common use”.

Some conservatives claim the 2nd amendment exists so the citizenry can overthrow the government (or at least act as a threat to keep the government from getting too powerful), in which case flame throwers and nukes SHOULD be legal.  Except that isn’t a world I want to live in.  And that’s my point: what kind of world do we want to live in?  A vast majority of US citizens didn’t support alcohol prohibition, which is why it didn’t work (in fact even the congressmen who passed the bill didn’t like it.)  From the recent polls about 70% of the US supports some kind of new gun legislation.  Perhaps we will be sorry after it passes, but that shouldn’t stop us from TRYING to do something. 

Furthermore, the NRA has opposed all kinds of research into gun safety– it’s just research, what are they scared of?  If we are going to get solutions we should be looking at the problem scientifically rather than working from hypotheticals and ideology.  I am not opposed to research on video game violence– if the study is sound then we can learn something, if not it will be apparent through peer review..  This idea about “opposing studies” implies that every published study is equally valid, if that were the case then we cured cancer decades ago.

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras_war_on_gun_science/

*the 2nd amendment also says “well regulated militia”– it’s interesting how the “well regulated” part always gets ignored.

Oh wait what?

Well, not until you hit the gun shows for a perfectly legal bump-fire stock and a belt-feed ammo mod.

http://www.slidefire.com/zombie-media

Then it’s 800 rounds a minute, baby!

(although they sell the bump-fire stocks at Cabelas “sporting goods” now too!)

Not *technically* full auto mind you, that would be illegal. You just externalize the normally-internal repeat-fire mechanism, and presto, Bob’s your loophole!

Seems to me that anyone who could pump 11 bullets into a 6-year-old at close range (as in Newtown) would  qualify as disordered.

You guys can either argue:
A) mass murderers contribute almost nothing to the murder rate and therefore we shouldn’t change gun laws on their account or:
B) only crazy people do bad things with guns so we just need to keep the guns away from crazy people.
But you can’t have it both ways.  I’m not talking about Adam Lanza, I’m talking about the vast majority of homicides by firearm.

Certainly you aren’t saying their behavior falls within “normal” parameters? 

When did you stop beating your wife?  I never said anything remotely resembling that.  Not sure why you’d imply I did.

But does overexposure to violent media produce a desensitization to violence, with a corresponding lack of empathy?  Or an increased likelihood of viewing violence as a viable means of problem-solving?  That seems far more likely to me.

There’s no evidence for either as far as I know, but feel free to correct me if you have any.

Whether the defense is ineffectual (as some contend it would be against infantry) is not germane.

From a cost/benefit analysis perspective it is absolutely germane.  If owning guns puts you at some risk but cannot plausibly guard you against other risks then it’s a net negative.  If owning guns puts others at risk )and it does) then it is in the interest of society to regulate gun ownership.

Yet here we are arguing about making laws in response to a different statisically unlikely event. 

You are the one talking about Adam Lanza.  I am not.

With the right, legal “Bump Fire” stock, you can get a civilian AR-15 can fire a full 800 rounds a minute!

http://www.slidefire.com

In most states, you can legally get not only high-capacity clips, but full-on belt feed bolt-on ammo buckets.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=i2zGcMipD54

“Assault rifle” indeed.  An AR-15 is a full on machine gun.  Anyone who tells you different isn’t accessory shopping at the right gun shows.

You should go shoot one.  I don’t like them but it’s good to understand something before you rail against it.

Ask him to name the studies on which he is basing his opinion. 

Seems to me that anyone who could pump 11 bullets into a 6-year-old at close range (as in Newtown) would  qualify as disordered.

Whether it’s through mental defect/disease, poor socialization, social conditioning, or a combination of those factors, SOMETHING is causing these people to commit these awful mass murders.

Unless you’re suggesting they’re just plain evil, that is.  

Certainly you aren’t saying their behavior falls within “normal” parameters?  

2.  Mental illness?  Probably not.  At most, violent media exacerbate existing problems.  

But does overexposure to violent media produce a desensitization to violence, with a corresponding lack of empathy?  Or an increased likelihood of viewing violence as a viable means of problem-solving?  That seems far more likely to me.

3.  All individuals have the inherent right of self-defense.  This is self-evident.  That right applies whether the aggressor being defended against is another individual, an invading army, or one’s own government gone badly awry.  Guns are a means to exercise that right.  Whether the defense is ineffectual (as some contend it would be against infantry) is not germane.

Gun owners (and even people who don’t own guns I’d imagine) are more than a little suspicious of gun registration and licensing because in the hands of the wrong people, a gun registry could easily facilitate confiscation.  

Is it LIKELY that such an event would occur?  Probably not.  Yet here we are arguing about making laws in response to a different statisically unlikely event.  

Long guns (rifles and shotguns) are much easier to aim under stressful situations.

Hmm, not sure that this seems very plausible to me.  But I don’t know a great deal about guns so I won’t argue the point.

Notice I didn’t mention power at all.  I realize that assault rifles assault-style rifles usually use rounds without a lot of stopping power.  One more reason why it seems to me that pistols and shotguns are the better weapons for home defense and that the main benefit of owning an AR-15 is “OMG look how cool it is!”

And since I am many kinds of geek I understand that sentiment entirely, I’m just frustrated that most gun owners can’t seem to admit to it.

Lamar Alexander’s remarks are an excellent demonstration of what happens when a single party lacks any kind of organized opposition.

Pistols are compact and maneuverable and lots of  people keep them in the home for defense use.  Some people prefer shotguns.  Others prefer small rifles like the AR-15.  When our SWAT or military clear a house they don’t use their pistols.  See my reply to wysinwyg for an explanation of why.In some states where short-barreled rifles are legal, you can get an AR-15 with a 7.5″ barrel compared to a 3″ to 5″ pistol barrel that won’t stick out much farther than a pistol would.I’m not big on arguing over terms but “assault rifle” has a real definition, it’s a rifle which can fire both semi-auto and full-auto.  AR-15′s are not that.  The military’s version of the gun is.  They look identical but they behave differently.I have 6 coworkers who own AR-15′s.  They’re extremely common now.  I prefer a simpler rifle, personally.

AR-15′s shoot the .223/5.56 NATO cartridge.  It is fairly weak as far as rifle rounds go.  For some context, it’s barely adequate for deer hunting.  The gun itself is fairly small and light.  With correct ammo choice I hear it’s perfectly suitable for in-home duty.

Pry my controller from my cold dead hands?

Same as it ever was…

I’m saying that stupid or dangerous or damaged people, when given objects which are potentially lethal, will sometimes do stupid and dangerous things. 

I wish you’d stop focusing so much on the mental illness aspect.  Folks without diagnosable mental illnesses commit all manner of violent crimes all the time and most people with mental illness do not. 

I also wish you could admit that a stupid and dangerous person with a gun is a lot more dangerous than a stupid and dangerous person with a baseball bat.

That said, this is exactly why I think gun control laws are a good idea.  We should be trying to keep guns out of the hands of stupid, dangerous people.

I am also saying that continual exposure to violence, whether simulated or real, will tend to produce a larger number of violent people.    Video games are part of that, and to deny it is fucking stupid.

Then why is violent crime declining even while use of violent video games is on the rise?  Why was the world more violent before violence in mass media (as Stephen Pinker argues exhaustively in a recent book)?

Edit: Oh, hey, look what Felton linked downthread:

http://boingboing.net/2013/01/18/a-helpful-reminder-video-game.html

I don’t think anything I’m suggesting makes it the least bit more difficult to play a game or watch TV or movies.  I think it should be difficult to own a firearm because firearms are deadly weapons.

Your variant tangent is essentially “dangerous things are dangerous” and is implicit (at least to me) whenever anyone talks about guns. But if you need someone to say it then yes dangerous things are dangerous.

Can you admit that guns are more dangerous than blunt instruments?

As a hammer with the proper intent can be just as deadly.

Apparently not.

This is ridiculous.  A person with bad intentions with a gun is obviously more dangerous than a person with bad intentions with a hammer.

If you can admit even that much there is no disagreement between us.

For those who are unstable, guns can provide false bravery and a real retributive power against the objects of their ire, real or imagined.

However, the unstable have to “get there” somehow.  If you’re already messed in the head, are exposed to endless casual violence, then given access to lethal weapons, the end result is fairly predictable.

How do you address that without making it unreasonably, unfairly more difficult for not-dangerous people to exercise their rights, whether that right is to play a game, watch a movie or TV show, or own a firearm?

Those stupid/dangerous things will often result in deaths.  

When intelligent, sensible, responsible people are entrusted with dangerous things, bad things will still occur, but likely far fewer.

I am also saying that continual exposure to violence, whether simulated or real, will tend to produce a larger number of violent people.    Video games are part of that, and to deny it is fucking stupid.