Defining Dangerous and Unusual, Part II

I was commenting on the psychological impact of some weapons type. Could there be objective standards to danger? We do that all the time with our endless debates about stopping power, now don't we?

I'll throw out that the danger bright line is the design of a weapon to impact more than one person easily and/or simultaneously.

As far as the weapon is just tool argument. That is common among the choir. However, IMHO - based on the large literature on priming aggression ideation - it has no persuasive power in this debate. The guns we want to protect are designed for and perceived as weapons by the general public. In fact, making the tool argument will be so blatanly ridiculous to folks that it is counterproductive.

We are not trying to protect single shot 22S bullseye rifles or pistols. It is also the case that folks see the weapon as bringing out the aggressive impulse. While a hammer or a gas can might do that - they do not naturally call forth their lethal usages. Guns do.

The argument for having them is based on their lethal usage for self-defense, defense of country, etc. Not sports or neutral tools.
 
I'll throw out that the danger bright line is the design of a weapon to impact more than one person easily and/or simultaneously.
Click to expand...

Careful, even a shotgun, fired into a crowd from a certain distance could easily and simultaneously impact more than one person. On the non-lethal side, so does pepper spray. Not a bad try, but I recommend leaving that one alone.

I was intrigued by the criteria suggested by poptime:

I wonder if part of the equation should be whether the weapon is indiscriminate. A handgun or rifle is aimed at a particular target. A bomb destroys everything in a given area. A machine gun sort of straddles the line.
So a "dangerous" weapon would be one that does not discriminate what it destroys.
Click to expand...

But that criteria may also cast too wide a net, again because of the long standing legality and acceptance of the scattergun.
 
Shotguns spread was designed for tweety birds. It was later used in combat as in WWI - and I grant you its lethality led the Germans to view it as dangerous. But given the long history of sporting use - the O/U guns probably could pass.

The high cap pumps have problems - antigunners in Switzerland have denounced them. So shotguns are a fuzzy concept. Limited cap shotguns probably skate. Street Sweepers don't.

The FAs and explosive projectile weapons are clearly weapons first. We can probably maintain shotguns as not dangerous if they are not 'extreme'.

Another thing about tools and sport - both the Australians and Brits tried to used these arguments to maintain gun ownership. The UK IDPA and IPSC types sometimes mocked our blood thirsty humanoid targets - why use these for 'sport'. Guess what - bye bye guns.

We tread a tight rope - we want to maintain ownership of instrument of lethal force but don't want to unleash a negative reaction to that usage.

That has to be based on reasonable utility as I said before.
 
maestro pistolero said:
Careful, even a shotgun, fired into a crowd from a certain distance could easily and simultaneously impact more than one person.
Click to expand...

I think we could dispense with that analogy. No shotgun could in any reasonable way be operationally or ballistically be compared with FA, particularly those that fire rifle cartridges. Apples and oranges completely. Any range demonstration would quickly show that.

Also, I don't find poptime's analogy helpful either. ALL bullets are indiscriminate as they kill whereever they are pointed. RPGs are aimed as well as Stingers and handguns.

I would go back to; "are they appropriate and reasonable for civilian SD?" For those weapons designed fully for the military, I would say no.

Yellowfin said:
The problem with labelling full auto as "dangerous AND unusual" is that it didn't get much of a chance to get to be usual.
Click to expand...

I think you are assuming there was a civilian demand for these FA weapons and I see no evidence that there ever was outside of folks like Baby Face Nelson. Sure they were unrestricted and Thompson tried to sell them to civilians but the venture failed. They were designed to be used by the military and had no practical civilian use even in the 1930s, Great Depression notwithstanding.
 
I think we could dispense with that analogy. No shotgun could in any reasonable way be operationally or ballistically be compared with FA, particularly those that fire rifle cartridges. Apples and oranges completely. Any range demonstration would quickly show that.
Click to expand...

I agree, there's no comparison.

The comment . . .
Careful, even a shotgun, fired into a crowd from a certain distance could easily and simultaneously impact more than one person
Click to expand...
. . . was in reply to Glenn's idea for this definition:

I'll throw out that the danger bright line is the design of a weapon to impact more than one person easily and/or simultaneously.
Click to expand...

I was merely pointing out that due to the characteristic spread of shotgun pellets, Glenn's definition might be misconstrued in such a way, that a common shotgun could technically meet the criteria he was suggesting.

I would go back to; "are they appropriate and reasonable for civilian SD?"
Click to expand...

That might be fine, if it's you or me deciding what's appropriate and reasonable, but if it's Paul Helmke, then we are in trouble. I think the legal definition has to be less subject to interpretation than that, or we will simply never get off the merry go round.
 
maestro pistolero said:
That might be fine, if it's you or me deciding what's appropriate and reasonable, but if it's Paul Helmke, then we are in trouble. I think the legal definition has to be less subject to interpretation than that, or we will simply never get off the merry go round.
Click to expand...

Agree that neither Paul Helmke nor I should decide and that is why I would draw that line at weapons in common use by civilians for self defense. That way the antis would have to prove it is not in common use and since they could not would give us as strong a position as I could envision. That brght line would start IMO at FA. Virtually anything under that should survive the "dangerous and unusual" test.
 
T.G. said:
Agree that neither Paul Helmke nor I should decide and that is why I would draw that line at weapons in common use by civilians for self defense.
Click to expand...
In a word, No.

To define it thus, would leave all firearms used for sport (hunting, competition or just plain fun plinking) out in the cold.

Common firearms used by civilians for self defense is one set of firearms. Common firearms used by civilians for any sporting purpose is a another set. Then there is the set of firearms that were once in common use by civilians. There is the set of firearms that were not in common use by civilians but are of historical value.

If the purpose is to protect what we now have, does anyone see the difficulty of defining "common use" and joining it to "dangerous and unusual?"
 
no inanimate object can be inherently dangerous.
Any item severely restricted to the public will be rare.
A handgun is only as discriminating as its operator.
I could put a blind fold on and walk into a kindergarten class and just start swinging, would that be discriminating?
If I put a bomb in your car and blow it up when you are driving alone on a country road, is that discriminating.

The person using the tool is responsible, not the tool.
 
Agree that neither Paul Helmke nor I should decide and that is why I would draw that line at weapons in common use by civilians for self defense.
Click to expand...

How about this:

. . . in common use by civilians for self defense or any other lawful purpose, including, but not limited to, target practice, competition, recreation, entertainment, etc., etc.
 
no inanimate object can be inherently dangerous.
Any item severely restricted to the public will be rare.
A handgun is only as discriminating as its operator.
I could put a blind fold on and walk into a kindergarten class and just start swinging, would that be discriminating?
If I put a bomb in your car and blow it up when you are driving alone on a country road, is that discriminating.

The person using the tool is responsible, not the tool.
Click to expand...

John, we know all that, you're missing the point. Because Heller mentioned that prohibitions on "dangerous and unusual weapons" are permissible, this thread is about proposing a legal definition of what "dangerous and unusual" means. Please re-read the original post from this thread.
THX
 
A chunk of Plutonium is inherently dangerous. It is inanimate. Go sit on it.


John, you need to think beyond cliches.

The purpose of the firearm is under discussion. That it itself is inanimate is irrelevant as I pointed out before.
 
If select fire AR-15s(M16s if you prefer) were available at the prices they would be if unregulated, they would be very common. My understanding is production cost would be insignificantly more than a semi-auto. I would buy one, most of the guys who shoot would also. I can pretty much guarantee some sort of weekly competitive event would start up at my hunting club. Likely most other clubs ad associations also.

If you stopped new production on single shot bolt action rifles and barrels suitable for high precision target shooting(define by some maximum bullet to barrel OD ratio) for 23 years and put all sorts of restrictions on their transfer and ownership they would become relatively unusual.

A chunk of Plutonium is inherently dangerous. It is inanimate. Go sit on it.
Click to expand...
Can you give an example of how a chunk of REFINED Plutonium could end up under my butt without someone taking some VERY INTENTIONAL ACTION(s)? See, even in your extreme example someone has to show neglect or malice before a dangerous situation is created.


What will pass through the legislature or even the courts? Commonly used for hunting or personal self defense at the present time. I do not think you will be able to get competition included as you can compete with almost any weapon. I think for it to pass it would have to be slightly more restrictive than things are currently and we would all be better off letting the issue sit in its ambiguous state.
 
Last edited:
Actually, should we even be focusing on defining the "dangerous and unusual" part? Looking at the majority opinion (p.55), the actual language is:

"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual" weapons."

I see a couple of points here. One is that it seems to me that the test is "in common use at the time" and not whether the weapon was "dangerous and unusual." Two, I notice that while the first sentence refers to the right to keep and carry arms, the second talks only about the prohibition on carrying dangerous or unusual arms.

There is another sentence worth reading: "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service - M16 rifles and the like, may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause." To me, it seems as if Scalia contemplates the M16 as the type of weapon that may be banned (as not in common use at the time). As the dissent points out, this doesn't make much logical sense (but does solve the thorny problem of not invalidating a whole host of federal firearms laws in one swoop while still protecting an individual right).

If we do focus on the "dangerous and unusual" language, then what we really need to define is "unusual." All weapons are by definition dangerous, albeit some more than others. So it seems we are focusing on "unusual" or "not in common use at the time" as the test once again.
 
Good points, BR.

Yes, focusing on what counts as "unusual" seems a more promising way to go. As I wrote in Part I of this discussion, "...pump shotguns must be about as 'unusual' as F150's..."

As Glenn pointed out above, "dangerous" is very much in the eye of the beholder -- but "unusual" could be defined in some objective, i.e. quantitative, way, at least in principle. (Care would be needed in the definition, however, lest it effectively prohibit innovations in design.)

While it's possible to argue, qua Yellowfin, that the standard of "in common use at the time" may be "unfairly" influenced by previous restrictions, as in those on FA weapons, I'm not sure this is a useful tactic. I agree with those who've suggested that FA is a "bright line" (where did that expression come from, anyway?) that's not worth pushing at for any number of reasons, including both actual and perceived dangerousness.
 
Antipitas said:
To define it thus, would leave all firearms used for sport (hunting, competition or just plain fun plinking) out in the cold.
Click to expand...

maestro pistolero said:
. . . in common use by civilians for self defense or any other lawful purpose, including, but not limited to, target practice, competition, recreation, entertainment, etc., etc.
Click to expand...

I stand by what I meant to say.:o

johnwilliamson062 said:
no inanimate object can be inherently dangerous.
Click to expand...

A firearm which is a weapon is by definition inherently dangerous. I agree it does not have a will of it's own but it is dangerous nonetheless. These arguments get us nowhere in the marketplace of ideas.
 
. . . in common use by civilians for self defense or any other lawful purpose, including, but not limited to, target practice, competition, recreation, entertainment, etc., etc.
Click to expand...

It all of a sudden occurred to me that using the term self defense could be interpreted to exclude defense of another innocent victim. Perhaps the language should reflect that purpose, as well.
 
It all of a sudden occurred to me that using the term self defense could be interpreted to exclude defense of another innocent victim.
Click to expand...

Yes, it could be, but for the purpose of this discussion, I don't think it matters, as the types of weapon appropriate for self defense would also work just fine to defend someone else... Unless you think that a weapon's effective range would somehow be a variable here?
 
Yes, it could be, but for the purpose of this discussion, I don't think it matters, as the types of weapon appropriate for self defense would also work just fine to defend someone else... Unless you think that a weapon's effective range would somehow be a variable here?
Click to expand...

No, you're right, there would be no difference in the choice of weapon.
 
I understand the desire to understand "dangerous and unusual".

But Heller is wrong.

The 2nd says "arms", not just FIREarms.

And the militia component of the 2nd is perhaps more important than the self-defense aspect that Heller focused upon...
.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top