Honestly seems like a situation where you update the 'monitoring' status with a note that (ultra-)rare Blood Clotting events have happened... and continue with the vaccinations.
Abundance of caution would be to steer (younger) women towards mRNA, if concerned about risk.
The weird confluence of CDC/FDA admitted attempts to manage public 'psychology' is precisely the area where political leaders should step in and override their 'guesses' which have proven mostly wrong.
heh... yeah she came to just fine and realized the fainting is just something she does... so she got the jab. They kept her an extra 15 minutes for observations.
Now, If I'd have been allowed there I might (or might not) have shouted... "quick, now's your chance" We'll never know.
We forget (I know I certainly do) that Prince Philippos had some significant Royal 'chops' belonging to both the Royal houses of Greece and Denmark.
My family were staunch Greek Royalists and I have a battered picture of my Great Grandfather (artist) with a young Prince Constantine I (c. 1890s) in the palace they are decorating. King Constantine was Philip's Uncle. My Great Grandfather broke tradition and named my Grandfather, Constantine after his patron.
Interestingly, my Grand Mother's family fled Smyrna in 1922 as a result of King Constantine's failed attack on Kemal's Ankara.
Not sure if the families spoke of these matters one they were in America.
If I ran a satire site and had mad meme skills, I'd make a political cartoon of the Supreme Court issuing it's press release on the Blue Ribbon bi-partisan colloquium it is holding on the judicial theories behind the Unitary Executive.
In intellectual history Canons are generally considered works which grapple (consciously or not) the previous work upon which they build. There's an endless debate whether there's a Meta-Canon of 'Being' where all Canons are really just a single Canon addressing timeless questions. I fall in the camp that says the Meta-Discussion is fruitless, because even if true, the Distinct Canons are themselves rational inquiries that cannot be discussed or defeated without reference to their internal Canons.
So, there are always overlapping Canons depending upon the tradition of inquiry whence they come. Sometimes the Canons overlap, sometimes they don't. It absolutely makes sense to identify a Canon in which your laws/ethics are building upon... lest you start having incommensurate Canon discussions... which, as you know, is the MacIntyre thesis writ large.
It's the fact that we can no longer identify the Canon which underpins our "Comparative Canoning" that is the problem. We all have a Canon... most of us are ignorant of it's origin and boundaries... hence fruitless 'aesthetic' canon wars.
But Canons? You can't do Philosophy without Canons and, I'd argue, you can't really do law either ... until you settle the Canon via war, divorce or separation.
Not J&J related, but my Daughter Fainted after her first Pfizer Shot.
Shew was convinced she had a 'reaction' - she's a bit of a hypochondriac, though - and not the first time she's fainted... but she was convinced.
Anyhow... time for her second shot and she started to get cold-feet reading the warnings on the websites about reactions... etc. I took her to the site, but they wouldn't let me go with her. Bad tactical move on their part. After going in circles a few times, they finally asked "Do *you* think you should get the second shot?" to which she relpied... "I'm relying on you to advise me" Checkmate, bet you wish her Therapy Father was there now, don't you.
While they were stewing on this impasse: she fainted.
So at least we got clarity on the whole reaction vs. nerves thing... after which they promptly jabbed her.
She stayed in bed the entire next day... but mostly on the phone telling people about her 'ordeal' and how bad she felt.
Having had to fill out multiple forms with invasive PII disclosures (in triplicate, in the olden days) I have no problems documenting firearm purchases.
I'm not particularly sanguine about the 'magic' that people think Background Checks will do other than thwart someone with a big obvious prohibition... usually a felony. Other than that... mostly wishful thinking owing to the fragmentation of data across multiple states/authorities/medical professionals, etc.
You could, perhaps, campaign on a massive National ID project ... hey, we could use it for Voting, and Vaccinations, and Citizenship, and Jobs, and Health Care too! But your mileage may vary on the enthusiasm of various constituencies. But that would be a consistent way to track who's eligible to own a firearm (and vote, and get a job, and travel, and etc. etc.) Funnily, despite the obvious dangers, I think modern states could make a case for this... but we'd have to make it (and build it) with eyes-wide-open vis-a-vis civil liberties and privacy (and Government desire to control actions... for the children, of course). So I'm potentially 'gettable' but realistically skeptical that anyone want this - except for the things they'd like to control/restirct.
So, the next obvious thing is to ignore the person and track the S/N... like a VIN. You *never* give away a VIN without telling the State that, hey, *I* don't have that VIN, this other guy, Ted, has the VIN... deal with him if there are any problems.
Of course, gun owners are familiar with the old joke that all his guns were lost in a boating accident... fair enough, we don't typically lose the things attached to our VIN#. But even then, there are a number of baby steps we could take in a solid Gun S/N registry... like warranty, specs/manuals, ease of use for transferring, and a serious fine that if you are ever found in possession of a gun that fell into a lake, be it yours or a real gun you found in a lake, then that's a big $$$ ticket... so don't carry/keep guns that aren't 'active' in the registry. Transferring ownership would be as simple as transferring a VIN... I don't have it, this guy over here has it. Which, is mostly how Gun show sales work anyway... but without the back-ground check that doesn't really work without the National ID. But, treating the S/N as something you the owner are responsible for... that's perhaps the only first step that's politically possible.
There are, I think limited steps we can take to manage the physical control of firearms that don't threaten/act like 'Voter Suppression' techniques... but that's the level of trust we have to build around to make these things work.
Plus I love the external hammer... all my firearms have external hammers... I assume there's safety plus half-cock? Have you seen the mechanics up close? Doesn't matter... box mag probably trumps.
First Holy Communion for the 6-yo tomorrow. He's making first confession today, and pretty psyched about it. I'm like, eh, give it a few decades and see how you feel... speaking of which, made my Easter confession for my Easter Duty. One of my legacy Greek Orthodox ideas I was using the pandemic to smuggle into the Catholic Church was the idea of fewer instances of communion, but greater preparation devotion beforehand. After a year of this project I can report the uptake in the Shenandoah Valley of this ancient discipline: 0.
More work in the woods this weekend... cutting windfall, clearing paths... enjoying the cool spring air as the forest flowers blossom.
Still can't find vaccinations in our part of Virginia... the tech failure here is par for my experience working with Govt. tech... but still pretty embarrassing.
I'll stipulate that Andrew is correct, this is just for show. Fine.
But honestly the comments are pretty terrible. The bill says right there on the front page that the filter can be disabled by an authorized user; if people wanted to argue that the device should default to YES Pr0N! ... fine. What I think is overlooked in all the snark is that Devices and ISP's are, in fact, 'conspiring' to thwart reasonable technology attempts from filtering.
I say this as a tech-savvy father who has tried lots and lots of tech: Web-browser filters? How dumb are those? 3rd Party Apps that monitor multiple browsers? Better, but easily circumvented. ISP Apps on Devices? Those things never work... and break after every update -- it's almost like they don't care about the results, just the additional $9.99/month to pretend something is happening. Router filters? Now we're talking... but guess what... the ISP's don't like DNS changes (because it robs them of some intel about your usage) so there are all sorts of subtle DNS wars going on that even I can't follow that cause your router based filters to randomly fail... or your ISP owned Filter to reboot/reset to default ISP DNS servers, and all sorts of 'shenanigans' that aren't simply the fault of hapless parents. ISP's: We weren't deliberately trying to break your filters, we just updated our firmware to provide you these awsome new features. Feature list: [null] And... phones don't use the Routers you have control over... they go direct to the ISP... which doesn't offer a filtering service. So your Router controls are kinda silly - when they work.
A Law (not necessarily this one) would do some of what this proposes:
1. Devices and Ecoystems have to build-in User based Security and not look to dump/break App level restrictions.
2. ISP's should filter traffic by law (and yes, the router based filters *do* filter for Violence or Guns or the other Snarky bullshit above) -- and by filter I mean offer user-based options and increase the metadata regulations of content providers to support this.
3. Failing ISP's filtering, then the law should favor 3rd parties filtering, and prevent ISP's from playing the games that they do play via Hardware and/or DNS wars.
Obviously, any law has to have auditing, adjudication and fines... and, as far as I can tell, the bill seems to have some concern for the fact that the devices have to have an audit trail of how the filters were set-up, who authorized changes, and when, etc. That's a minimum, and at a minimum it isn't ignored... I'm sure it could be reasonably enhanced to prevent frivolous lawsuits... but that becomes a Tech/Device/ISP engagement issue -- which they would do if they were looking a $10 fines per incident. Absent that? They don't and most tech really doesn't work... or works sporadically with constant vigilance.
At a minimum... as I've said in other threads when this topic comes up... I don't care if the default is ON or OFF... I do care that the Govt. does play a role in regulating the rules so that we can opt to turn it ON or OFF... and honestly, y'all are either blissfully ignorant of the tech games going on to make sure that PR0N data $$ are consumed or disingenuous, or worse. I am disappoint.
There are already background checks... the issue with background checks are the fact that there isn't shared data or a central clearing against which the checks can be made.
BUT... if we're negotiating... then let's make the National ID that we're checking the same thing you need to Vote and is also the Employment check.
I think Vikram put this on Twitter as one of those grand bargains everyone would object to... because at the end of the day, it isn't the background check it's the idea that there's a system that determine who's in and who's out. We just can't agree on the out groups.
I guess I'd think about it this way... if people who own guns look at them and look at what a sensible regulatory regime might look like and drive our own self-legislation, it would reduce the likelihood that negotiating from zero-sum - which is what kills any desire to discus any limitations because there's really no limit to the limitations desired.
The irony in this is to marginalize the negotiating partner that has no interest in negotiating - on both sides. The ultimate benefit is to us who know that the .223 is an anti-personnel round that shouldn't be in the hands of punters.
But sure, let's trade better regulated CC laws and reciprocity for 'shall-issue' laws with greater proof that the carrier is competent and qualified... a reasonable compromise for the 'well regulated' part without going full 'militia' requirement. Couple CC laws with guaranteed, standardized (and maybe expanded) Castle Defense for those who don't want CC.
But yes, I take your point that absent a reliable negotiating partner, what's the point of negotiating is a rational position.
Sure... ballistics people are their own special kind of weird, but the engineering behind ammunition and platform specs is very easy to regulate (if you know how it all works).
Ultimately the ammunition on the shelf (or not on the shelf) is the regulating factor.
Yes. It is quite clearly an approach that works on the margins; but working on the margins is the only approach that makes sense. And, further, one has to start with the margins that the opposition might be willing to concede on. I recognize that the secondary argument, that forcing spree shooters to use under/over-powered arms is a soft-mitigation argument in that we could never calculate whether the next spree that kills 10 people might have killed 14 were it not for the mitigation efforts... but I'm comfortable saying that the .223 round is a pernicious round that we should reduce access to.
I recognize that rhetorically I'm not going to go to the matt arguing I'd rather be shot by a .17 than a .223... but to Michael's point above, if we're doing weird "would you rather" scenarios, I'd rather be shot in the arm by a .17 than by a .223 than by my .50 muzzle loader... but then even if you could automate my .50 the act of shooting it and recoil would enable more people to scatter and run faster than a shooter could recalibrate - esp. these shooters who are buying their guns a week before their spree.
I take your point, of course, about handguns... VA Tech in particular is a horror story of trapped victims and point blank shots. Most all the lessons learned there were about lockdowns and egress. And most 'semi-spree' shootings are acquaintance/family killings with handguns for which this marginal regulation would have no effect. Which is to say, handguns are their own issue.
This is a concession I'd be willing to make recognizing that the .223 and that ballistic profile and platform lowers the bar too low... and the growth of the .223 market, you have to admit, is a real thing over the past 10-15 yrs. But yes, this small proposal isn't anything like a 'silver bullet' but it is something I'd be willing to concede that doesn't fall into the realm of aesthetics or the kabuki theater of divining intentions via background checks (that already happen).
If I, a gun owner, were to craft laws that would make spree killing harder I'd look at ballistics. The .223/5.56 (AR-15) is a pernicious round... the absurdly low recoil and efficiently lethal ballistics make it a fabulous anti-personnel round for military use around the world. I'd work with ballistics teams and gun owners to identify the band of existing (and hypothetical) rounds that make the .223 too easy to handle with no training.
It's a pretty big step-up to a .308/7.62 (AR-10...and maybe that should be included in the evaluation) that would make the firing platform just a bit harder to handle without training. It's the everything in-between that would need review and/or laws. And, ultimately, any round on any platform is lethal in any given situation... but I've seen enough to recognize that the .223 (and the like) should be taken out of circulation. You can't hunt Big Game with it in most states, the .17 is a better varmint round, and there are literally hundreds of other options for home defense that are better (or at least as good)... there's just no place for it outside of sport, military, or unfortunately spree. I'll admit its fun to shoot, sorry Sport shooters.
To be sure, my ol' 336 Marlin with simple 30/30 rounds is plenty lethal... but not in the way the .223 is.
Ballistics experts know what the design specs are... that's the expert you want designing gun legislation.
Handguns are, of course, the single biggest killer... but if we're controlling for a certain sort of spree, then it's the .223 that's really dangerous. At 20 paces, an untrained user won't hit what they're aiming at with a 9mm (most of the time)... but will with a .223 platform (most of the time) and will get off an accurate second or third shot. People vastly underestimate the difficulty of firing a pistol with accuracy at range (especially by someone who hasn't trained with it).
Something to think about... I'm less concerned about regulations around ammunition vs. regulations around the tools themselves. In any case, steel yourselves for endless discussions about the relative lethality of the 5.56 vs. the 6.8 vs. 7.62x39 or x51... vs. etc. At some point the line is arbitrary... but we who shoot know there's a line.
On “CDC and FDA Against Johnson & Johnson Vaccine”
Public health is not worth running afoul of fraught topics.
"
Honestly seems like a situation where you update the 'monitoring' status with a note that (ultra-)rare Blood Clotting events have happened... and continue with the vaccinations.
Abundance of caution would be to steer (younger) women towards mRNA, if concerned about risk.
The weird confluence of CDC/FDA admitted attempts to manage public 'psychology' is precisely the area where political leaders should step in and override their 'guesses' which have proven mostly wrong.
On “Weekend Plans Post: Champing at the Bit”
heh... yeah she came to just fine and realized the fainting is just something she does... so she got the jab. They kept her an extra 15 minutes for observations.
Now, If I'd have been allowed there I might (or might not) have shouted... "quick, now's your chance" We'll never know.
On “Prince Philip Dead at 99”
Well, when you think about it after WWI what's a poor Prince to do? The eligible pool had shrunk so much he had to settle for the English.
"
We forget (I know I certainly do) that Prince Philippos had some significant Royal 'chops' belonging to both the Royal houses of Greece and Denmark.
My family were staunch Greek Royalists and I have a battered picture of my Great Grandfather (artist) with a young Prince Constantine I (c. 1890s) in the palace they are decorating. King Constantine was Philip's Uncle. My Great Grandfather broke tradition and named my Grandfather, Constantine after his patron.
Interestingly, my Grand Mother's family fled Smyrna in 1922 as a result of King Constantine's failed attack on Kemal's Ankara.
Not sure if the families spoke of these matters one they were in America.
On “Presidential Commission on SCOTUS: Read It For Yourself”
If I ran a satire site and had mad meme skills, I'd make a political cartoon of the Supreme Court issuing it's press release on the Blue Ribbon bi-partisan colloquium it is holding on the judicial theories behind the Unitary Executive.
On “Explode the Canon: How to Fight a Better Canon War”
In intellectual history Canons are generally considered works which grapple (consciously or not) the previous work upon which they build. There's an endless debate whether there's a Meta-Canon of 'Being' where all Canons are really just a single Canon addressing timeless questions. I fall in the camp that says the Meta-Discussion is fruitless, because even if true, the Distinct Canons are themselves rational inquiries that cannot be discussed or defeated without reference to their internal Canons.
So, there are always overlapping Canons depending upon the tradition of inquiry whence they come. Sometimes the Canons overlap, sometimes they don't. It absolutely makes sense to identify a Canon in which your laws/ethics are building upon... lest you start having incommensurate Canon discussions... which, as you know, is the MacIntyre thesis writ large.
It's the fact that we can no longer identify the Canon which underpins our "Comparative Canoning" that is the problem. We all have a Canon... most of us are ignorant of it's origin and boundaries... hence fruitless 'aesthetic' canon wars.
But Canons? You can't do Philosophy without Canons and, I'd argue, you can't really do law either ... until you settle the Canon via war, divorce or separation.
[Ha!]
On “Weekend Plans Post: Champing at the Bit”
Not J&J related, but my Daughter Fainted after her first Pfizer Shot.
Shew was convinced she had a 'reaction' - she's a bit of a hypochondriac, though - and not the first time she's fainted... but she was convinced.
Anyhow... time for her second shot and she started to get cold-feet reading the warnings on the websites about reactions... etc. I took her to the site, but they wouldn't let me go with her. Bad tactical move on their part. After going in circles a few times, they finally asked "Do *you* think you should get the second shot?" to which she relpied... "I'm relying on you to advise me" Checkmate, bet you wish her Therapy Father was there now, don't you.
While they were stewing on this impasse: she fainted.
So at least we got clarity on the whole reaction vs. nerves thing... after which they promptly jabbed her.
She stayed in bed the entire next day... but mostly on the phone telling people about her 'ordeal' and how bad she felt.
...and she's GenZ, not Milennial :-)
On “President Biden Executive Actions On Gun Control: Read It For Yourself”
Having had to fill out multiple forms with invasive PII disclosures (in triplicate, in the olden days) I have no problems documenting firearm purchases.
I'm not particularly sanguine about the 'magic' that people think Background Checks will do other than thwart someone with a big obvious prohibition... usually a felony. Other than that... mostly wishful thinking owing to the fragmentation of data across multiple states/authorities/medical professionals, etc.
You could, perhaps, campaign on a massive National ID project ... hey, we could use it for Voting, and Vaccinations, and Citizenship, and Jobs, and Health Care too! But your mileage may vary on the enthusiasm of various constituencies. But that would be a consistent way to track who's eligible to own a firearm (and vote, and get a job, and travel, and etc. etc.) Funnily, despite the obvious dangers, I think modern states could make a case for this... but we'd have to make it (and build it) with eyes-wide-open vis-a-vis civil liberties and privacy (and Government desire to control actions... for the children, of course). So I'm potentially 'gettable' but realistically skeptical that anyone want this - except for the things they'd like to control/restirct.
So, the next obvious thing is to ignore the person and track the S/N... like a VIN. You *never* give away a VIN without telling the State that, hey, *I* don't have that VIN, this other guy, Ted, has the VIN... deal with him if there are any problems.
Of course, gun owners are familiar with the old joke that all his guns were lost in a boating accident... fair enough, we don't typically lose the things attached to our VIN#. But even then, there are a number of baby steps we could take in a solid Gun S/N registry... like warranty, specs/manuals, ease of use for transferring, and a serious fine that if you are ever found in possession of a gun that fell into a lake, be it yours or a real gun you found in a lake, then that's a big $$$ ticket... so don't carry/keep guns that aren't 'active' in the registry. Transferring ownership would be as simple as transferring a VIN... I don't have it, this guy over here has it. Which, is mostly how Gun show sales work anyway... but without the back-ground check that doesn't really work without the National ID. But, treating the S/N as something you the owner are responsible for... that's perhaps the only first step that's politically possible.
There are, I think limited steps we can take to manage the physical control of firearms that don't threaten/act like 'Voter Suppression' techniques... but that's the level of trust we have to build around to make these things work.
On “Weekend Plans Post: Relearning What My Grandparents Knew About Oatmeal, Of All Things”
Amazing how many things bump up a notch with some fermenting. Not sure we've tried it with oatmeal, but I'm primed to believe you.
On “Yes, Prime Minister: If The Right People Don’t Have Power”
Durham and LSE I suppose...
"
"Months of fruitful work."
On “Go Ahead and Take It”
Plus I love the external hammer... all my firearms have external hammers... I assume there's safety plus half-cock? Have you seen the mechanics up close? Doesn't matter... box mag probably trumps.
"
I was gonna link you to some 30/30 specially designed point ammo I used last Deer season... but dang... it seems America is plumb out of ammo.
$1.00/round for 9mm holy shit.
"
No. Way.
Love the box mag... only thing I'm not wild about with my Marlin is the tube. I think I'll join you with the .243
On “Weekend Plans Post: Shaking My Head Like I’ve Napped Too Long”
First Holy Communion for the 6-yo tomorrow. He's making first confession today, and pretty psyched about it. I'm like, eh, give it a few decades and see how you feel... speaking of which, made my Easter confession for my Easter Duty. One of my legacy Greek Orthodox ideas I was using the pandemic to smuggle into the Catholic Church was the idea of fewer instances of communion, but greater preparation devotion beforehand. After a year of this project I can report the uptake in the Shenandoah Valley of this ancient discipline: 0.
More work in the woods this weekend... cutting windfall, clearing paths... enjoying the cool spring air as the forest flowers blossom.
Still can't find vaccinations in our part of Virginia... the tech failure here is par for my experience working with Govt. tech... but still pretty embarrassing.
On “Utah Strikes A Pose on Porn Filters”
I'll stipulate that Andrew is correct, this is just for show. Fine.
But honestly the comments are pretty terrible. The bill says right there on the front page that the filter can be disabled by an authorized user; if people wanted to argue that the device should default to YES Pr0N! ... fine. What I think is overlooked in all the snark is that Devices and ISP's are, in fact, 'conspiring' to thwart reasonable technology attempts from filtering.
I say this as a tech-savvy father who has tried lots and lots of tech: Web-browser filters? How dumb are those? 3rd Party Apps that monitor multiple browsers? Better, but easily circumvented. ISP Apps on Devices? Those things never work... and break after every update -- it's almost like they don't care about the results, just the additional $9.99/month to pretend something is happening. Router filters? Now we're talking... but guess what... the ISP's don't like DNS changes (because it robs them of some intel about your usage) so there are all sorts of subtle DNS wars going on that even I can't follow that cause your router based filters to randomly fail... or your ISP owned Filter to reboot/reset to default ISP DNS servers, and all sorts of 'shenanigans' that aren't simply the fault of hapless parents. ISP's: We weren't deliberately trying to break your filters, we just updated our firmware to provide you these awsome new features. Feature list: [null] And... phones don't use the Routers you have control over... they go direct to the ISP... which doesn't offer a filtering service. So your Router controls are kinda silly - when they work.
A Law (not necessarily this one) would do some of what this proposes:
1. Devices and Ecoystems have to build-in User based Security and not look to dump/break App level restrictions.
2. ISP's should filter traffic by law (and yes, the router based filters *do* filter for Violence or Guns or the other Snarky bullshit above) -- and by filter I mean offer user-based options and increase the metadata regulations of content providers to support this.
3. Failing ISP's filtering, then the law should favor 3rd parties filtering, and prevent ISP's from playing the games that they do play via Hardware and/or DNS wars.
Obviously, any law has to have auditing, adjudication and fines... and, as far as I can tell, the bill seems to have some concern for the fact that the devices have to have an audit trail of how the filters were set-up, who authorized changes, and when, etc. That's a minimum, and at a minimum it isn't ignored... I'm sure it could be reasonably enhanced to prevent frivolous lawsuits... but that becomes a Tech/Device/ISP engagement issue -- which they would do if they were looking a $10 fines per incident. Absent that? They don't and most tech really doesn't work... or works sporadically with constant vigilance.
At a minimum... as I've said in other threads when this topic comes up... I don't care if the default is ON or OFF... I do care that the Govt. does play a role in regulating the rules so that we can opt to turn it ON or OFF... and honestly, y'all are either blissfully ignorant of the tech games going on to make sure that PR0N data $$ are consumed or disingenuous, or worse. I am disappoint.
On “9th Circuit Ruling on Open Carry Laws: Read It For Yourself”
Walking right into Robert's Trap...
Some States:
Restricted Guns, Unrestricted Abortion
Other States:
Restricted Abortion, Unrestricted Guns
That's the Suez Canal of jurisprudence, motherf*ckers.
On “Shooting at Boulder Grocery Store Leaves 10 Dead”
There are already background checks... the issue with background checks are the fact that there isn't shared data or a central clearing against which the checks can be made.
BUT... if we're negotiating... then let's make the National ID that we're checking the same thing you need to Vote and is also the Employment check.
I think Vikram put this on Twitter as one of those grand bargains everyone would object to... because at the end of the day, it isn't the background check it's the idea that there's a system that determine who's in and who's out. We just can't agree on the out groups.
"
Sure, fair point.
I guess I'd think about it this way... if people who own guns look at them and look at what a sensible regulatory regime might look like and drive our own self-legislation, it would reduce the likelihood that negotiating from zero-sum - which is what kills any desire to discus any limitations because there's really no limit to the limitations desired.
The irony in this is to marginalize the negotiating partner that has no interest in negotiating - on both sides. The ultimate benefit is to us who know that the .223 is an anti-personnel round that shouldn't be in the hands of punters.
But sure, let's trade better regulated CC laws and reciprocity for 'shall-issue' laws with greater proof that the carrier is competent and qualified... a reasonable compromise for the 'well regulated' part without going full 'militia' requirement. Couple CC laws with guaranteed, standardized (and maybe expanded) Castle Defense for those who don't want CC.
But yes, I take your point that absent a reliable negotiating partner, what's the point of negotiating is a rational position.
"
Sure... ballistics people are their own special kind of weird, but the engineering behind ammunition and platform specs is very easy to regulate (if you know how it all works).
Ultimately the ammunition on the shelf (or not on the shelf) is the regulating factor.
"
Yes. It is quite clearly an approach that works on the margins; but working on the margins is the only approach that makes sense. And, further, one has to start with the margins that the opposition might be willing to concede on. I recognize that the secondary argument, that forcing spree shooters to use under/over-powered arms is a soft-mitigation argument in that we could never calculate whether the next spree that kills 10 people might have killed 14 were it not for the mitigation efforts... but I'm comfortable saying that the .223 round is a pernicious round that we should reduce access to.
I recognize that rhetorically I'm not going to go to the matt arguing I'd rather be shot by a .17 than a .223... but to Michael's point above, if we're doing weird "would you rather" scenarios, I'd rather be shot in the arm by a .17 than by a .223 than by my .50 muzzle loader... but then even if you could automate my .50 the act of shooting it and recoil would enable more people to scatter and run faster than a shooter could recalibrate - esp. these shooters who are buying their guns a week before their spree.
I take your point, of course, about handguns... VA Tech in particular is a horror story of trapped victims and point blank shots. Most all the lessons learned there were about lockdowns and egress. And most 'semi-spree' shootings are acquaintance/family killings with handguns for which this marginal regulation would have no effect. Which is to say, handguns are their own issue.
This is a concession I'd be willing to make recognizing that the .223 and that ballistic profile and platform lowers the bar too low... and the growth of the .223 market, you have to admit, is a real thing over the past 10-15 yrs. But yes, this small proposal isn't anything like a 'silver bullet' but it is something I'd be willing to concede that doesn't fall into the realm of aesthetics or the kabuki theater of divining intentions via background checks (that already happen).
"
If I, a gun owner, were to craft laws that would make spree killing harder I'd look at ballistics. The .223/5.56 (AR-15) is a pernicious round... the absurdly low recoil and efficiently lethal ballistics make it a fabulous anti-personnel round for military use around the world. I'd work with ballistics teams and gun owners to identify the band of existing (and hypothetical) rounds that make the .223 too easy to handle with no training.
It's a pretty big step-up to a .308/7.62 (AR-10...and maybe that should be included in the evaluation) that would make the firing platform just a bit harder to handle without training. It's the everything in-between that would need review and/or laws. And, ultimately, any round on any platform is lethal in any given situation... but I've seen enough to recognize that the .223 (and the like) should be taken out of circulation. You can't hunt Big Game with it in most states, the .17 is a better varmint round, and there are literally hundreds of other options for home defense that are better (or at least as good)... there's just no place for it outside of sport, military, or unfortunately spree. I'll admit its fun to shoot, sorry Sport shooters.
To be sure, my ol' 336 Marlin with simple 30/30 rounds is plenty lethal... but not in the way the .223 is.
Ballistics experts know what the design specs are... that's the expert you want designing gun legislation.
Handguns are, of course, the single biggest killer... but if we're controlling for a certain sort of spree, then it's the .223 that's really dangerous. At 20 paces, an untrained user won't hit what they're aiming at with a 9mm (most of the time)... but will with a .223 platform (most of the time) and will get off an accurate second or third shot. People vastly underestimate the difficulty of firing a pistol with accuracy at range (especially by someone who hasn't trained with it).
Something to think about... I'm less concerned about regulations around ammunition vs. regulations around the tools themselves. In any case, steel yourselves for endless discussions about the relative lethality of the 5.56 vs. the 6.8 vs. 7.62x39 or x51... vs. etc. At some point the line is arbitrary... but we who shoot know there's a line.
On “You Thought The 2020 Elections Were Over? Pffff….”
Norms were broken...
But I had a similar thought; for a single seat in Iowa?
On “Game of Thrones: GRRM, Fan Fiction, and the Pearls of Irritated Oysters”
Peter Jackson is bad fanfic.
Send tweet.