World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[Ack]

It's just something that always struck me as odd about gun control advocacy in the wake of a mass shooting, where the killer obviously had foresight and intentional planning. Take the case of James Holmes, who shot up the theater in Aurora, Colorado. In the wake of his crime, gun control got brought up a lot. But I never heard anyone discuss that he was decked out with a full set of body armor and a gas mask, or that he had juryrigged his apartment with boobytraps and explosives. He'd been prepping for his plan for months in advance.

If, in the case of Chattanooga, this guy had made sure to select his targets intentionally because he knew they would be relatively unarmed, than he had enough foresight to gauge the effectiveness of what he was doing. I don't know if more stringent firearms regulations would have stopped his actions or dissipated his murderous intentions. I suspect instead he would have sought out a different means of pursuing his goal.

[Ack]

Also, re-reading your post, do you realize you argued that the restriction of rights in the name of security has done nothing but made us more vulnerable to government and not increased our security, and then you advocated further restriction on a right in the name of security? In particular, a right that might serve as the ultimate tool to protect against government.

Just seems odd is what I'm saying.

[marurun]

Well, there's quite a bit of proof the former case of restricting rights to secure greater safety hasn't worked worth a darn. In the case of restricting gun rights some, there's ample evidence, especially in the form of a recent detailed analysis, that indicates well-crafted gun laws may indeed have an effect on acts of violence. Further, gun restrictions potentially affect fewer Americans than our security theater on public transport, National Security Letters, etc... Most gun restrictions proposed would still not prevent enthusiasts from owning guns. It would just make buying a gun take longer, involve more checks, or perhaps further restrict certain types of firearms. Those kinds of restrictions are much more narrowly targeted and thus have a more narrow effect on society at large.

Sure, someone with a plan will find a way to hurt someone, but guns are a lot easier and cheaper to get and have an immediate satisfaction that comes with using them. Bombs are more complicated to pull off, have to be planned differently, and are less useful in a direct assault. Hell, Japan has guys who flip sometimes wandering into a crowd to hack people up with knives. However, NONE of this has anything to do with potential benefits to society that would come from tightening gun restriction.

There are lots of ways to kill people, but in the US, guns are the easiest. Making guns less easy, done properly, could have a strong potential impact.

[Ack]

But some of those firearms you will likely propose regulating already are heavily regulated, sometimes ridiculously so or in ways which are obviously borne of ignorance. For instance, attaching a telescoping stock and a fitting for a bayonet can change the classification of a .22 rifle to an assault rifle, despite not actually doing anything to influence the lethality of the weapon. So called "assault rifles" also are rarely used to commit crimes.

As for firearms statistics, perhaps they do...or not. We struggle to separate police and federal law officer shooting statistics from those of regular citizens. Gun crime has been generally diminishing for the last 20 years, during which time we saw an assault weapons ban go into effect and then expire. We did see an uptick in 2012 in firearms murders, but at the same time overall murders from rifles and shotguns diminished(the increase was from handguns), and the rate diminished in 2013.

Meanwhile, it's worth noting that states with varying levels of gun control don't necessarily see a proper return on those laws. The state with the highest number of homicides committed with a firearm in 2012 was California(1304 firearms homicides), while the lowest were Vermont(2 homicides) and Alabama(1 homicide).

We're also the country with the highest number of firearms per people, yet as of 2012, we have only 2.97 murders via firearm per 100,000 people. Other countries with high numbers of firearms per civilians, such as Switzerland (3rd highest ownership rate in the world) and Finland(4th highest rate in the world), have low rates too(0.77 people murdered by firearm per 100,000 in Switzerland, 0.45 people murdered by firearm in 100,000 in Finland. Yemen ranks 2nd for ownership, but I don't have stats on murder rates there).

The biggest issue I have with gun control is that it just feels like a straw man for more difficult problems to wrangle with, such as drug abuse, organized crime, mental health issues, domestic violence, and extremism leading into terrorism. Sure, guns are easy to get, but make them harder to acquire and...we still have all of the underlying issues which were driving people to kill each other, they just have to get more creative.

Also, it's actually easier to kill people in the US with an automobile...

And finally...

Further, gun restrictions potentially affect fewer Americans than our security theater on public transport, National Security Letters, etc...

Yes, but that doesn't make it ok to restrict something, just because it affects fewer people than something else we disagree with.

[pepharytheworm]

The biggest issue I have with gun control is that it just feels like a straw man for more difficult problems to wrangle with, such as drug abuse, organized crime, mental health issues, domestic violence, and extremism leading into terrorism.

You talk about other's straw men while making several of your own.

Also, it's actually easier to kill people in the US with an automobile....

So...would you have preferred a bombing then?

[Fragems]

Really restrictions don't do shit thanks to private sales. There are usually around 3-4 gun shows a month around here during the summer, and the only restrictions there are you have to pay $5-$10 to get in the door . Only thing blocking a person from grabbing a gun there is if the buyer gets a bad vibe and refuses to sell which hardly ever happens.

Hell one of our flea markets has a gun club in one corner where guys are pretty much selling guns every weekend. It's mostly just guys selling and trading from their private collections but there is quite a variety of stuff that goes through there.

AKs pop up all the time as well so it's not like getting an unregistered assault rifle is that difficult at least around here.

[Pulsar_t]

As long as the little people (yes, soldiers are little people too in the US) are the ones getting killed by those firearms, nothing will change. Everywhere else in the world where there's a functioning, non-failed state, this entity has exclusive rights to the use of violence according to the law (hopefully)

[Ack]

You're right, I'm showing him how it's done, Peph.

[marurun]

But some of those firearms you will likely propose regulating already are heavily regulated, sometimes ridiculously so or in ways which are obviously borne of ignorance. For instance, attaching a telescoping stock and a fitting for a bayonet can change the classification of a .22 rifle to an assault rifle, despite not actually doing anything to influence the lethality of the weapon. So called "assault rifles" also are rarely used to commit crimes.

You make a good point. Current definitions of "assault weapons" are vague and unhelpful. That said, some firearm features could be more carefully examined, like large magazines or high rates of fire beyond a couple shots, without attempting to broadly classify weapons based on fuzzy logic.

As for firearms statistics, perhaps they do...or not. We struggle to separate police and federal law officer shooting statistics from those of regular citizens. Gun crime has been generally diminishing for the last 20 years, during which time we saw an assault weapons ban go into effect and then expire. We did see an uptick in 2012 in firearms murders, but at the same time overall murders from rifles and shotguns diminished(the increase was from handguns), and the rate diminished in 2013.

Violence in general is down in the US compared to decades ago. Despite our inflammatory news cycle, we are a more peaceful nation (despite internet trolling). As something of an aside, generally speaking, rifles and shotguns are those which are most historically useful to society (in the role of hunting and protection of property). Pistols require, I think, separate attention, much as I think specific firearm features do.

Meanwhile, it's worth noting that states with varying levels of gun control don't necessarily see a proper return on those laws. The state with the highest number of homicides committed with a firearm in 2012 was California(1304 firearms homicides), while the lowest were Vermont(2 homicides) and Alabama(1 homicide).

One of the problems here is that we talk about the level of gun control, but not the individual controls. I think a more nuanced analysis, were the government not restricted on spending to study such issues, could help tease out which specific restrictions and policies are more helpful and which are less helpful. There are all sorts of ways to regulate things, and not all of them are good. Some politicians, when under pressure, will enact any old regulations just to be able to point out to voters that they did something. The key is enacting good regulations, and if we don't know what good regulations are, we need to build regulation regimes that have sunset provisions that take effect should they not have the desired impact. And part of that also means not enacting a bazillion different strategies at once.

We're also the country with the highest number of firearms per people, yet as of 2012, we have only 2.97 murders via firearm per 100,000 people. Other countries with high numbers of firearms per civilians, such as Switzerland (3rd highest ownership rate in the world) and Finland(4th highest rate in the world), have low rates too(0.77 people murdered by firearm per 100,000 in Switzerland, 0.45 people murdered by firearm in 100,000 in Finland. Yemen ranks 2nd for ownership, but I don't have stats on murder rates there).

And death rates by firearm are hard to suss, given that CDC data includes justifiable homicide and FBI data is voluntary. Still, according to one very interesting article (I shall link below), when looking at small data, at the neighborhood and community level, the gun ownership rates do correlate well with gun violence rates.

The biggest issue I have with gun control is that it just feels like a straw man for more difficult problems to wrangle with, such as drug abuse, organized crime, mental health issues, domestic violence, and extremism leading into terrorism. Sure, guns are easy to get, but make them harder to acquire and...we still have all of the underlying issues which were driving people to kill each other, they just have to get more creative.

These bigger-picture issues do still need to be grappled with. This doesn't in any way mean that we shouldn't be examining gun regulation to find out what works and what doesn't. I think there's enough bandwidth in this nation to tackle more than one problem at a time. But some of the problems emerge from this conundrum: the voting blocks most likely to oppose gun regulation are also more likely to oppose criminal justice reform and oppose increased public health (including mental health) funding. If we're going to say that regulating gun ownership is not one of the ways we, as a nation, are willing to address gun violence, then we need to be willing to spend the money to actually address some of these underlying issues. And let's not equivocate, here: it will involve the spending of public funds. Better recognition and treatment of mental health issues without stigmatization (which would prevent people from seeking or accepting treatment) costs money and require social change. Decreasing domestic violence involves more aggressively tackling embedded social sexism (though that's certainly not the only cause of domestic violence). We also need to get better at helping veterans cope with, and if possible conquer, PTSD. These solutions all involve cultural shifts AND the spending of additional money, two things that are difficult to get many pro-gun voters on board with.

Also, it's actually easier to kill people in the US with an automobile...

Very true. Very unrelated, as well (too many is too many, regardless of what other too manys there might be). Besides, Google's working on that.

And finally...

Further, gun restrictions potentially affect fewer Americans than our security theater on public transport, National Security Letters, etc...

Yes, but that doesn't make it ok to restrict something, just because it affects fewer people than something else we disagree with.

When determining how and under what circumstances the government is allowed to restrict rights, especially constitutionally protected ones, this is indeed one factor that can and should be considered. Free speech is amended in case of inciting others to violence or causing panic (the old "fire in a crowded theater" exception), two cases where particular speech can cause immediate and widespread harm. These restrictions are considered to be minimally intrusive for maximal benefit, to such a degree that the imposition is justified. I think current post-9/11 security measures are quite intrusive to a large segment of the population engaging in normal daily activities for quite minimal benefit, which really turns the equation on its head. They key for gun regulations is to aim for the greatest benefit with the least amount of imposition. Which is to say, we need to be more specific with our restrictions (if they affect particular equipment or types of guns) or stick to restrictions that ensure broader coverage (gun shows and private sales) and greater accuracy with background checks (not cutting off checks that need to exceed 4 days) but which do not ultimately keep guns out of the hands of qualified potential owners.

Two links I found interesting and not particularly partisan:

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rh ... gun-facts/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02 ... rspective/

[Pulsar_t]

Police farce.