Gun Control and Regulations

No country regulates by fire rate.

How would you propose writing that regulation, though? I’m interested to hear, because I guarantee any attempt would be shot full of holes (pardon the pun) instantly. It’s simply not a realistic characteristic to regulate by.

They should have sent a poet.

Germany has a limit on how many rounds at once a weapon can shot. That is easy to regulate. Just write "x-rounds are allowed, more rounds as well as equipment to shot additional rounds are not". Done. Again, just imagine how many people might manage to escape a mass shooter in the time he needs to reload or change his weapon.

Firing rate seems like one of the few features of a gun that is easily defined and regulated. Though you might have to get incredibly pedantic about the firing mechanism (and creating a law that is open for patching). But fundamentally, there isn't anything particularly vague about firing so many rounds over the course of a minute.

Not that it would actually help the situation, but it's definitely one of the more defined characteristics.

Depends on if the shooter has a vantage point and guns ready. Thinking of the Las Vegas shooting, here.

Edited by RainehDaze on Nov 9th 2018 at 12:06:05 PM

Avatar Source

Uhh...you may be misinterpreting that law. That’s for fully automatic weapons, it prohibits weapons that fire more than one round per single operation of the trigger. It doesn’t regulate fire rate. The 10-round magazine limit also isn’t a fire rate regulation.

I’m in agreement with you that more and stricter regulations are necessary, I’m just telling you that regulating by fire rate is a non-starter. It’s not something you can practically regulate in any way.

Edited by archonspeaks on Nov 9th 2018 at 4:10:09 AM

They should have sent a poet.

Not every shooter has a vantage point, though, and even the Las Vegas shooter might have killed less people if he had been forced to change weapon and reload. Same with this last shooter. Granted, he was a former soldier, so he would have most likely had access to all kind of weapons anyway one way or another, but just for a "some guy comes into a room and starts to shoot", it DOES make a difference how many shots he is able to fire at once.

Why not? It's a pretty easily defined feature. Either a gun can do something or a gun can't do it.

Edited by Swanpride on Nov 9th 2018 at 4:13:22 AM

Okay, let’s just play this out then. Say the law says that all weapons which can fire more than X rounds per minute are illegal.

First off, that law catches both manual and semi-automatic weapons, as there are manual weapons like slide action rifles (or really any manual weapon operated quickly) which have fire rates equal to semi-automatic weapons.

That law is too vague to enforce, so you have to regulate fire rate via mechanical design. At that point, you’re done. Things like double action handguns create huge loopholes, and the technical language you’d need in the law to create such a restriction would be so complex that circumventing it would be relatively simple.

It’s simply impractical to regulate via fire rate. There’s a reason even the countries with the absolute strictest gun laws don’t even attempt it. You can achieve the same practical reduction in gun crime by just regulating other stuff. It’s unnecessary.

A desire for regulation via fire rate betrays an ignorance as to how firearms actually work. It’s like trying to regulate alcohol by color, it’s just a nonsensical way to go about it.

Edited by archonspeaks on Nov 9th 2018 at 4:24:10 AM

They should have sent a poet.

Alcohol is regulated per percentage in my country. Meaning drinks with a lower alcohol percentage (like Beer) are available once you are 16, the harder stuff with the higher percentage once your are 18, and pure alcohol which might damage your brain isn't available at all unless you have a good reason to work with it.

Anyway, the reason why there is no such regulation in Germany is not because it isn't possible, but because we have to fight with our own weapon lobby about stuff like this, too. I think that the argument is deeply dishonest. This is not about what would be possible, this is about weapon producers not being able to sell a "better" model the possible fire power is limited this way.

To clarify something, this isn't on the top of the regulations I would introduce, but it is certainly one which I think would make sense. There is just no political will to do it.

Edited by Swanpride on Nov 9th 2018 at 4:33:35 AM

That was an analogy, not an actual comment on alcohol regulations.

The reason nobody tries fire rate regulations is because they simply aren’t practical. There are dozens of better ways of regulating firearms which have the same end effect of reducing crime.

Like I said, it’s something that’s really only proposed by people who have very little knowledge of the particulars of firearms. As someone who knows a good deal about firearms, and also believes civilian ownership of firearms should be essentially impossible I think I’m in a unique place to comment on it.

Edited by archonspeaks on Nov 9th 2018 at 4:36:17 AM

They should have sent a poet.

You still haven't really explained why it wouldn't be practical. You keep talking about able to circumvent the law, but as I see it, it is MUCH easier to circumvent regulations if you don't put inarguable features like the number of rounds which can be shoot and/or the fire rate into it.

Like, you ban those boom stocks or however they are called. Great. So next the weapon industry invents something else which allows the guns to fire faster and call it something different. So the law has to ban it too. Instead of just putting into the law that every equipment which is designed to enhance the fire power of a gun is banned for private purchase. See, done. And the great thing is that since there won't be a consumer base for stuff like it, it won't be put into production in the first place, so it won't turn up on the illegal market either.

Edited by Swanpride on Nov 9th 2018 at 4:43:34 AM

Okay, imagine you said that any weapon that fired faster than 40 RPM (the average fire rate of a semi-automatic rifle) was illegal. Would a semi automatic rifle fired slowly be legal? Would a manual rifle fired quickly be illegal? You’d have to regulate by mechanical details, not fire rate as a whole, and the nature of a weapon’s fire rate makes that type of regulation almost impossible. There are so many conceivable ways you could get around that kind of restriction (literally hundreds) that the law would be all but toothless. And what would even be the point in writing such a massively complex and loophole-filled piece of legislation when there are so many simpler things that would have the same effect?

Bump stocks (not boom stocks) are a perfect example of the futility of technical regulation. The law says a weapon can only fire one round per operation of the trigger, and under that reading a bump stock is legal, it just lets you operate the trigger very quickly.

Edited by archonspeaks on Nov 9th 2018 at 4:54:06 AM

They should have sent a poet.

Why not just limit how much ammunition one can have?

I mean, hunters should get an pass; but do you really need over an hundred bullets if someone breaks into your home?

Answer no master, never the slave Carry your dreams down into the grave Every heart, like every soul, equal to break

Raineh: Yeah actually there is quite a bit to be vague about with rate of fire vs mechanisms. Not only is there a wide variety of rates of fire among even select fire(automatic and burst fire) firearms but even semi-auto and manual action firearms have a wide variety of possible fire rates that are almost entirely reliant on individual skill.

There is no universal fire rate or easily selected threshold because it simply doesn't exist.

It would make more sense to aim at certain categories like the ability to fire continuously with a single trigger pull or in rapid bursts which are select fire weapons. You target something that is far easier to control namely the type of actions permitted in civilian firearms. It is also a lot easier to check for a specific mechanism type than a person who through training and preparation could surpass a wholly arbitrary rate of fire limit. The speed of a shooter with manual and even semi-automatic firearms is heavily reliant on the skill of an individual operating the weapon. Select fire weapons enable anyone to achieve high rates of fire with minimal training, the whole point of that mechanism.

Limiting the capacity of a firearm works to a certain point. It can help but is not a reliable means on its own.

Bolt action rifles, shotguns, and even older manual actions are easier to limit because of the nature of their design. Magazine fed weapons would depend entirely on how hard it is to make a magazine for a given firearm.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Nov 9th 2018 at 6:56:37 AM

Who watches the watchmen?

Exactly because there are so many ways to get around it if you get caught up in mechanical details, it should be about the number of rounds and the fire rate. So, let's say (this is just an example), a weapon can fire x-bullet in X-amount of time in the hand of an untrained shoter, every feature to enhance a weapons fire power is illegal. Done.

Edited by Swanpride on Nov 9th 2018 at 4:57:32 AM

Swan: You completely missed it by a mile. Trying to insist on the rate of fire is what is creating excessive and loophole-filled complexity.

Who watches the watchmen?

First off, the phrase “fire power” is meaningless. We’re talking about fire rate.

Second, there is no way to regulate like that. You seem absolutely wedded to this idea with no understanding of how or why it would work. Are you suggesting a semi auto ban? Because that’s not a fire rate ban.

Edited by archonspeaks on Nov 9th 2018 at 5:00:21 AM

They should have sent a poet.

Again, why? How many bullets are in a magazine is a definable feature. How often you have to press the trigger is a definable feature.

Edited by Swanpride on Nov 9th 2018 at 5:00:28 AM

> but do you really need over an hundred bullets if someone breaks into your home?

You do if it's bear and won't down quietly

Being serious though but if someone breaks into your home and threatens you and your family the number of bullets is irreverent,you want the threat eliminated hence why you grabbed the gun

New theme music also a box

Okay, you obviously don’t know much about guns so I’m going to take a different tack here. Tell me the exact wording of your proposed law, and I’ll start pointing out loopholes.

Edited by archonspeaks on Nov 9th 2018 at 5:02:57 AM

They should have sent a poet.

I didn't say that rate of fire and firing mechanisms are the same. I say that rate of fire is easily defined and you would have to be pedantic about the firing mechanism.

Obviously, it isn't practical because even as a starting baseline you'd need to ask the question of every single firearm "how fast can the action cycle", then try to factor in how fast the shooter can fire it, and then magazine capacity (though that's hardly a fixed value), ease of reload (again obviously easily circumvented).

But compared to the absurdity of "what is a stock" and regulating on something like calibre which then fails when ammunition improves... rate of fire is helpfully just a number. Which is easier than defining an "assault weapon". But not worth it.

About the only part of rate of fire worth regulating is that no civilian ever needs something capable of automatic fire, and any modification to add or simulate that with a weapon is really beyond the point of legality.

Edited by RainehDaze on Nov 9th 2018 at 1:06:19 PM

Avatar Source

…I already did. In a non lawyer language because I am not a lawyer. And naturally the exact limits would be something experts would have to decide on.

Well, that was pretty much my train of thought. "Assault weapon" is a term difficult to describe because it is easy to argue that something is technically not an assault weapon even though it is clearly built in a way that its main purpose is to kill as many people as possible. Hence the idea to go by purpose...so, someone needs a weapon for hunting. Great, which game is hunted and which kind of firepower is reasonable for it? That's what he is allowed to have. Someone needs a weapon for sport. Great, what is needed there.

I just can't imagine any scenario where you would need a weapon which can fire as many rounds as possible as fast as possible outside of a war zone.

Edited by Swanpride on Nov 9th 2018 at 5:12:26 AM

This is absolutely nonsense. It's like arguing that internal combustion engines are descended from steam engines, and the first modern steam engines were built to run pumps to pull water out of mines, therefore every car made today are actually mining equipment. It's blatantly Insane Troll Logic so you can label all guns as weapons of war, regardless of what they're actually designed for.

This is also nonsense. We've successfully regulated firearms by feature and type in the US for nearly a century. The National Firearms Act of 1934 is the law that took automatic weapons out of the hands of most people (they're not actually banned outright, but they're so tightly regulated that it's not worth the bother and expense of getting one for the vast majority of people). Automatic weapons used to be freely used by criminals (the "Tommy gun", the Thompson submachine gun, was the signature weapon of Prohibition-era gangsters), but now they're basically never involved in gun crime, thanks to being strictly regulated.

The answer to the problem of "but it's hard to regulate that" isn't to give up on regulating it, it's to write better legislation. Things like the Assault Weapons Ban were ineffective because "assault weapon" is a meaningless term with no clear definition, so the legislation banned mostly "scary" cosmetic features that had little to no effect on the effectiveness of the gun. But it's completely possible to identify specific features or categories of weapons and target them with specific legislation.

Here's an easy example: weapons with high-capacity magazines. High-capacity magazines make guns demonstrably deadlier by allowing shooters to fire more rounds before they have to stop and reload. So let's say we decide to ban those. In fact, let's ban removable magazines entirely, since, while they're convenient, they make reloading much easier and faster, which makes guns much deadlier, especially in mass shooting situations. So you write a law saying that no firearm can accept a removable magazine of any size, and no firearm may have a fixed magazine that allows for more than six rounds to be fired continuously without reloading.

Now, I'm not arguing that this is necessarily a good law that should be passed, I'm just saying that identifying specific features that actually affect the level of danger posed by the weapons (high capacity magazines that allow shooters to reload less frequently, removable magazines that allow them to reload more quickly and easily) and regulating those features in ways that mitigate the danger they pose (legal limits on magazine capacity, complete ban on removable magazines) are entirely possible.

No it doesn't. Simply require firearm manufacturers to include mechanical components that make it physically impossible for the weapon to be fired faster than 40 RPM, even if the shooter is capable of pulling the trigger that rapidly. Sure, it would be possible to modify the weapon to get around that sort of fire rate limiter, but owning such a modified weapon would be illegal the same way that owning a sawed-off shotgun is illegal.

This, again, is nonsense. No one here (as far as I know) is a legislature, so we're not good at writing legislation. This proves nothing. You can use the "but there will be loopholes!" argument against literally any proposed regulation or legislation. The answer is not to give up on regulation and legislation, it's to write the best version you can and then close loopholes as they pop up in the wild.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

By the nature of firearm maintenance, I think that would ban every gun except for shotguns and bolt action stuff. Possibly those if worded wrong.

Avatar Source

Swan: Because again simply drilling to replace ammo, cycle your weapons, action and pull the trigger for even aimed fire can surpass arbitrary limits. Simple training alone undermines your proposal. No, how many times you have to pull the trigger is not a reliable mechanic either as again it ignores other factors like variability in skill. Yes, it is a skill. You still haven't answered questions asked of you earlier such as if a weapon is simply fired more slowly or more quickly does it impact the legality or how it fails to address the fact people can readily alter the rates of fire via training or deliberate action. Even more notable is there is no definable threshold as it is reliant on skill. It is entirely possible to operate a bolt action rifle at rates comparable to semi-automatic rifles despite having smaller ammo capacities and a manual action. The thin you keep deliberately ignoring is individual skill is what enables that and is something the vast majority of people can achieve by simply practicing.

Your proposal is not realistic nor grounded in how firearms work and the variability that is inherent in many varieties of firearms operation.

Who watches the watchmen?

I wouldn’t exactly call our legislation successful. Attempts at overly technical regulation are why we’re in the position we’re in.

To use the example of Germany again, their regulation is much less technical than ours but more focused on regulating the basic act of ownership. That’s the only really effective way to go.

As far as the “make guns mechanically complex so they’re slow to operate” proposal, that’s just unrealistic. As Tuefel pointed out anyone could simply work the action faster, and unless you’re mandating puzzle boxes be built into every gun there’s nothing you could do to meaningfully slow down rate of fire.

Edited by archonspeaks on Nov 9th 2018 at 5:16:42 AM

They should have sent a poet.

And doing so would be illegal, and you can put into the law that if someone circumvents the gun control laws, the gun permit is revoked altogether.

And yes, training would change what you are able to do with a gun, but how many school shooter have actually training? This would literally only be relevant for Vets with "mental issues".

I think you aren't understanding what the purpose of gun control is. It is about

1. Keeping guns out of the hand of people who have no idea how to handle them 2. Keeping them out of the hand of instable/suicidal people if possible 3. Giving the police some law they can use against people who would stock and enhance weapons

It won't keep weapons out of the hands of those who are truly determined. But they tend to be the minority of attackers.

Edited by Swanpride on Nov 9th 2018 at 5:20:18 AM