Little bit of clickbait: See conclusion for cryptographic token suggestion:
With the recent shooting in Florida, we are again paralyzed on both sides in regards to gun control. And even more so, we are blasted with false facts on both sides trying to push their views on us without providing the necessary information base to have an informed opinion. Part of this is because people don't care about learning potential facts that dismiss their own understanding of the topic, i.e. ignorance. Another reason is because both sides have have deeply rooted beliefs that cannot change. So we MUST compromise if we are to come to any solution at all.
The AR-15 and assault rifles in general, are central to the topic of guns.
While the focus on the AR-15 is unjust, it is a principal component to undertanding everything right and wrong about gun rights in the United States, so I'm going to take some time to discuss the AR-15.
Ultimately, my goal is to give you a balanced understanding of why this problem is so hotly debated. The information you read here are both opinion and fact and I will make it a point to indicate it. But before I go any further, I want you, the reader, to understand that I like guns. I enjoy recreational shooting. I like to hunt, although I do not participate in gun season (I prefer bow hunting). I also love target shooting, and am a strong proponent of self defense through martial arts training and to an extent using guns and knives for self defense. So let's start with some FACTS.
The AR-15 was meant to kill people
Gun enthusiasts highlight this as an obvious fact that is driven by the OPERATOR of the weapon, but the real message here is that the AR-15 was intended to be easy for the operator to shoot humans effectively. The mechanics of all semi automatic guns are essentially all the same.
How it chambers the next round is inconsequential. How it fits in the users hands/shoulder is also inconsequential. The rifle was simply meant for combat, similarly there are guns created for the sole purpose of competition use only. Going back to the AR, it is designed for low ammunition weight (so you can carry more of it on your BODY), low weapon weight (for long duration missions), ease of reloading (for fire fights), ease of shooting (accuracy), ease of cleaning (extended operations), durability and to use a cartridge (gun lingo for bullet) that is strong enough to kill someone.
Immediately, we can remove some of these design aspects such as ease of cleaning, low ammunition weight and durability out of this discussion.
The important factors are:
- Ease of Shooting
- Ease of Reloading
The AR-15's ammunition, the .223 Remington/5.56 NATO round was meant to kill people effectively.
The 5.56 NATO and .223 Remington differ in power, but it is only noticeable to experienced shooters, otherwise the difference is not worth mentioning. The ammunition used in the AR rifle is designed to be lightweight, so more ammo can be carried into combat. This becomes inconsequential to mass shootings because a shooter could still carry enough of the next heaviest bullet with zero change to their agenda.
If we talk about lethality, the 5.56 is designed to cause greater damage by tumbling and fragementing upon impact, making the wounds larger and therefore increasing the potential blood loss. I could go on about the ballistics of the cartridge, but the fact is that the .223 is *** ONE OF THE SMALLEST*** and most effective rifle calibers on the market. Anything smaller is inefficient at killing human sized targets , and everything else is literally too powerful for shooting at people bigger in a combat situation using rifles at close ranges.
The AR-15 ammunition is number 13 in the photo comparison below of all common ammunition types.
I bring this up because people have suggested that we ban the AR for its bullet size because it's so easy to shoot and while it is true, I want you, the reader, to really think about this comment. What is it suggesting? If we ban ammunition types, what stops someone from engineering another bullet?
What criteria of law do you use to ban ammunition?
The only argument for this piece of information is to say, perhaps we need an inverse graduated caliber license system.
Ban all assault weapons
This is a strange one to talk about because assault weapons are classified by the government via cosmetic features that do not change the function of the gun. This is largely because the people who write these laws are not familiar with guns, and do not discuss the problem with professionals. Part of this is also because the CDC is not allowed to study gun violence and therefore, they literally do not know anything about guns.
In most jurisdictions, an assault weapon is typically classified as having these two main features:
- Pistol Grip
- A detachable magazine that holds an excess of anywhere from 5 to 10 rounds.
This photo is based on California's definition of an Assault Weapon, they include some other features, but the main one is the pistol grip and the magazine.
So banning an AR will not solve the real problem because there are plenty more guns that fit the bill such as a Ruger Mini-14, or any of the dozens of guns that look completely different from an AR but function just like one.
My point here is to say that targeting a gun by name does not fix the problem, because the AR-15 is NOT the problem, but you have to understand why it is part of the problem. The real problem people have with the AR is that the reload system is EASY. But there is a problem with this, let me show you some videos from youtube:
This is an experienced shooter with the AR reload system.
This is an inexperienced shooter with the AR reload system.
This is an experienced shooter using a non magazine type rifle
The point I'm trying to make here is that these bans are all pretty much useless since we will almost always find a way to engineer our way around laws that do not address baseline problems. In this case, the "problem" is the reload speed.
Unexpected to most, all studies have shown that the US has a gun problem simply because we have TOO MANY GUNS.
You can go read the studies yourself but the US isn't any more prone to violent video games, or mental health issues, we just have access to a lot of guns. So the way we address it is by reducing the number of guns, or making it more difficult to access, but that in itself brings us to a TOTALLY different topic, which is constitutional rights.
The legality of controlling guns
Most people forget that the same laws that gives us *** THE SECURITY OF LIBERTY***, are the same laws that you would have to shut down in order to put licenses on gun ownership. Understanding how law works is fundamental to understanding why it is so difficult to put licenses on guns.
The two main problems with gun control, on the legal side, is establishing a law that is constitutional under the 2nd amendment and then allowing it to pass, wait for someone to sue, and allow the Supreme Court to inturpret the law.
Here is the zinger, when the 1994 Violent Crime act, which included the assault weapons ban, occurred, several challenges were made against it under the commerce clause and not under the 2nd amendment because you were still allowed to buy weapons that were not named under the 2nd amendment, such as the Ruger Mini 14.
What do we do now?
As a engineer, I would first test the studies by enacting another 10 year assault weapons ban to see if we can simply reduce the number of guns on the streets. But I honestly think this is a quick bandaid to a problem that needs a deeper look at the law.
What are some solutions?
Perhaps we need an age ban on semi-automatic rifles. Perhaps 30 years old because we would have developed the proper history to fill the NICS system if we have one, and perhaps we would be mentally stable enough at that age to be responsible to own one. Someone would challenge this under the 2nd amendment, but the reality is that we are not stopping you from buying another gun, such as a bolt action. You can still own shotguns, competition level .22LR guns, pistols etc. Nearly all of the school shootings occur with young males who are troubled. At the young age that we are in high school, our minds are completely screwed up with the way society functions. Perhaps we just need age as the first level defense.
The second level would come through stronger requirements to submit data to the NICS system.
The third level would be a volume restriction to purchasing semi automatic rifles with detachable magazines but that would require a temporary store of data, which in itself is hotly debated.
CONCLUSION - CRYPTOGRAPHIC TOKENS?
I hope this gives you a better understanding of where we stand with guns. I've been thinking of how cryptographic tokens can be used to secure the data for gun owners that would require you to register your information with a gun dealer (which you already do when you fill out the NICS form) and then be given a digital wallet where coins can be deposited each time you buy a gun. The token would serve as an anonymous database that can only be linked back to your purchases without knowing who you are. Currently, the only way the government knows you own a gun is if they subpoena the dealer for the serial number.
This means that cryptographic tokens are not meant to be currency, instead they serve as a security of data, which is likely how security protocols such as proof of work was first established.
about weapons, I think that in order to give permission to carry weapons, it is necessary to conduct a deep psycho-emotional examination. personally, I would generally banned weapons and severely punished for its presence. it's like in the bible, one of the commandments "do not tempt", if there is a weapon, then there will be no murders from him.
you would fall into the category of people who have a deeply rooted belief on one side only. I dont agree with you at all, which puts us in a bind. If we are to co-exist in this society, how do we find a way to satisfy both of our beliefs? Am I evil for wanting to own a gun?
My point in this post is to discuss the THAT compromise and how to achieve it.
Your belief that we need to conduct a deep psycho analysis of the person wanting to own guns is already violating the 2nd amendment. There is no due process since you've disqualified someone from owning without giving them the chance to speak for themselves. So it's very hard to discuss the "how to" with people who have a personal belief that they hold truer than the law.
it's just my opinion. let's simulate the situation. let's say we have full access to buying weapons. a person comes (mv do not know what he has with his psyche) and buys a gun, then they go to the street and see a boy who is very similar to the boy who offended him at school. and he pulls out a gun and killed the guy. because this can be ??! it's just an example. I for the fact that before you allow someone to buy a gun, you need to check the psyche of a person. and your position is also correct. if forbidden, then it violates the laws.
You cannot use individual events to justify how to deal with something. I could say that a home owner buys a gun, and a robber comes into their home that very night with another gun. The homeowner defends the home and saves the day. Does that justify letting everyone own a gun? Ofcourse not.
The real question here is how do we find the middle ground, and unless you are open to that middle ground (which requires you to understand the whole picture) it becomes a standstill.
Thats where we are in this country right now. we are at a complete stand still because both sides are unwilling to understand the other side.
but how do you see the solution to this issue? where is the middle?
There is no middle
and the killers who do 90%+ of gun murders who are not allowed guns but have them anyhow?
sell your cloak and buy a sword.
Intriguing topic, I wish I would have caught this commentary when you talking about it while the post was live, but anyway here you go. I have been able to access maybe a half dozen weapons at any point in my life, that is if I really made it my life's mission to do so. But that was never an option. Let me repeat, never an option to steal a weapon number one, and then escalate exponentially in an attempt to harm someone else or even murder anyone, let alone a bunch of people. Guns are always available, along with everything else on the planet that you wish to blindside someone with attacking a fellow human in the most evil and cowardly way possible, a massacre. Not to make it overtly political, because it's not a left/right issue in my opinion. I think it is a result of a lot of compromises over time that have made this even contemplated by someone who has lost their humanity. Enforce existing laws as they are written is a great start. People don't rob police stations. Once in a tens of million times a gun is grabbed in a court room, and there is only one person in the room armed, 99.999% of the time. Do we have too many people? Maybe that's a problem?(that's my 2 cents on how ridiculous getting rid of guns is going to eliminate criminal violence) They don't have AI models that act on their own, they are just like a computer, they do what they are told virtually every time. Computers make nuclear ICBM arsenals possible, should we ban the pc? Or mandate the power or build type of a computer you need. "You crypto miners don't need Xstyle (lol I don't even know what a cpu setup for a BTC miner would be) computer setup to email." The craftsman is the first place to check for a mistake, not the inanimate tool they are using to carry out their will. Not always, and not often enough to amend the Constitution. I hope the sarcasm was picked up to point out what in my opinion what is a bit ridiculous, with even more ridiculousness. I don't have any personal animosity towards people that would like to see less guns, one bit, in fact I am fairly compassionate to the idea as it does truly mean well. But I do disagree that is any kind of real solution to the rise of malcontents chasing down mass media or (sickening) pop-culture infamy, until there is a full accountability under the law we all have a whole lot of hypothetical theories and no real practical answers. In my opinion that is the next place this 'discussion' (hypothetical one we seem to never have) should go, should it ever start.
many of the people who go on mass shootings have a common trend that they were on some kind of antipsychotics at some point, so i think their mind set is very different from someone who could never have sick thoughts. I think we are all capable of having those type of thoughts since they stem from something very internal to us.
I think most people who want to ban ARs, still think the person is at fault, but they keep thinking, they are crazy, lets stop the crazy guy from getting something that could kill me. no one else wants to kill me, but that crazy person. therefore anyone, including myself, dont need a gun for "protection".
Right on antipsych meds are never talked about when these happen. We never seem to factor that in, that is very true. I think when history looks back at this time they will comment at how we were able being able to carry day to day with the entire population messed up on pills and chemicals that interact horribly. Like we look at early colonial period times when they drank whiskey because the drinking water was like a slurry of toxic chemicals. They finally figured out that if you boil the water like you boil the fermented corn/wheat to make whiskey you don't have to get smashed every day, which we look at today in a very similar vain. I personally would give room on the AR-15 being carried for sure. But being owned and lawfully locked and protected for the most dire emergencies I must disagree there though. Your electronic monitoring idea that you mentioned in the article should definitely be explored though, that is a great compromise of being able to own them but yet maintain the fullest responsibility humanly possible. I feel the ability to carry is a "ideally never used insurance policy" to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. I would hate to die because someone all messed up for whatever reason charges their ex-spouse standing right next me and then wants to spray the place after finishing the most cowardly of all deeds possible. I would want to lawfully have some chance in that event. Also, how many of these shooting suspects/convictions are NRA members, or concealed carry permit holders? Don't worry, lol we will definitely find out the first person that fits that description should it happen. I am very glad to discuss this with someone who deeply thinks out this argument, I hope I didn't upset you too much where I disagree, to a point, but I am very glad to have a real discussion with this that takes their time and evaluate realities than emotion. By the way, did you notice that up to this point, neither one of us mentioned a specific name or a specific political party by name. Full disclosure I did mention the NRA so I broke the identity affiliated argument. You may be the first person I have seen that has this discussion without injecting emotional rhetoric toward identifiable people/groups of a nationally (divisive) recognizable party, group. Major kudos for that sir.
This comment has received a 0.54 % upvote from @speedvoter thanks to: @cryptkeeper17.
Unexpected to most, all studies have shown that the US has a gun problem simply because we have TOO MANY GUNS.
My wife says i have the same problem- too many guns lol
Good analysis of a very tricky topic. Hunting family myself, but I agree something needs to be done. I find myself in the middle compared to the pundits, like you mention too. Thanks for writing this. I hope more people educate themselves about the situation as a whole. What you suggest would make the guns used in nearly all mass shootings illegal (or at least illegal to buy new). While a hunting rifle or pistol is dangerous, it often cannot reach the level of destruction of assault rifles (generic definition like you say). Living in Colorado, definitely a tough issue with two of the worst events ever, and a big hunting and gun rights state.
This seems to be a very touchy topic in the US, but I think it's obvious there is indeed a serious problem. I don't understand why a gun license that requires a mental health check should be a problem. People are OK with having to get a driver's license and with having their car registered, but for some reason guns have to be different. If you want to operate something dangerous, why not making sure that you are capable of doing so first?
I say your article is very useful @motoengineer, although I am not too familiar with politics. But I'm sure your post is very useful for those who know about politics. I watch this video you share this. The guy who was shooting, it looked very horrified to me, because I was so scared of guns. You explain about Ban all assault weapons. But I'm sure each country must have its own politics and the government also has its own strategy to be able to provide prosperity for all its people. Thanks for sharing and hope you have a wonderful day ... :)
Don't be afraid, learn!
people who wanna kill will always find away.
While this is true, the lethality between a gun and not a gun is clearly there. How do you reduce lethality of someone who wants to kill? There is a difference between an assailant with a musket vs an assault rifle vs a knife. This is obvious. Making it fair to good and bad is not so obvious.
Making it fair is the best we can do. And that means having equally effective weapons as criminals and governments.
Congratulation
Today one year ago you joined SteemItThank you, for making SteemIt great and Steem on for more years to come!
(You are being celebrated here)