Guns and gun control

[brkl]

EDIT: Also, holding up China as a model for good government has got to be one of the worst arguments ever. :-P

Who's extrapolating what now

[syntheticgerbil]

There's also probably something to be said about America's millennarian anxieties being carried past term, no doubt due to 9/11 and all that, since I don't know of many other two-hundred year old democracies where a large percentage of the populace believes itself perpetually on the verge of civil war.

They're drinking the tap water man, the CIA is poisoning them with flouride so that they can cause perpetual civil unrest for those who share certain water tanks in preparation for the New World Order.

[jeremywc]

Who's extrapolating what now

Fire with fire. ;-)

But you still didn't answer my question. I'm seriously interested in hearing what suggestions people have for increasing security in schools, especially in light of the measures Obama just announced. I think they were pretty good.

[ThunderPeel2001]

I didn't make the argument that everyone needs unrestricted access to all weapons. I was basically saying there will always be crazy people.

You did read my first post in this thread, right? It pretty much responds to this very point as accurately as is possible.

Your argument appears to be "there's always going to be crazy people who will manage to find ways of killing people -- guns aren't necessarily the problem".

Number of gun-related deaths per year:

US: 32,163

UK: 138

Even taking into account the difference in population, that's a huge difference.

The problem with the US and guns appears to be very deep, though. A large portion of the population refuse to accept that gun ownership is related to gun deaths, and the idea of losing their guns makes them very nervous. I was listening to someone recently who said change only ever happens when the people in power want it AND the public want it. Otherwise it won't take hold, and I think that's going to be a sticking point for a while in the US.

Also, of course, the issue that there's already so many guns in the US. It's a bit a of a mess all right :-/

Still, since researching this post I have two new facts to tote. America has not only the highest gun deaths per year, per capita, in the First World, it also has the highest infant mortality rate, too. Despite this, there's no problems with their healthcare system, nor their gun laws, and they're still the "best" country in the world. U-S-A! U-S-A!

[Luftmensch]

I live in Texas too and consider myself a pretty liberally minded person. The department I work in has many gun enthusiasts who own AR-15's. I don't personally think they need those AR-15's, but I would never classify any of them as mentally unstable. They're all responsible people, many ex-military, who take gun safety seriously. I feel completely safe around them both inside and outside of work. I think making a blanket statement like that harms the conversation because it's so quickly dismissed by the other side (with good reason).

It depends a lot on your experience. I know some responsible gun enthusiasts who like to collect guns and shoot cans at the firing range for fun. That's all fine and good. Then there's my old boss, who would literally cock and aim his shotgun at people regularly as a joke. Even though his wife was almost killed ten years ago when someone else did the exact same thing with her. Even disregarding that, he is a paranoid looney, and if it weren't for the folks I know who are just plain enthusiasts, my impression of gun owners would be entirely defined by that old nutjob.

i read a really interesting article just after the shooting exploring the idea that 'merica got democracy too early.

I've seen fiction deal with that sort of idea a few times. Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court kind of deals with that. He tries to bring enlightened technology and policy to the medieval people, but the culture just can't take it. That's part of why the Prime Directive exists. Maybe a bottom-up cultural evolution would be good in the long-term, but I'm still optimistic for a top-down approach. Once people weren't allowed to segregate, things weren't all fixed, but they sure got better.

[Colourful Stuff]

The problem with the US and guns appears to be very deep, though. A large portion of the population refuse to accept that gun ownership is related to gun deaths, and the idea of losing their guns makes them very nervous. I was listening to someone recently who said change only ever happens when the people in power want it AND the public want it. Otherwise it won't take hold, and I think that's going to be a sticking point for a while in the US.

Your point about the public having to want change for it to be effective is a little simplistic. A rational and motivated minority will do regardless of the majority sentiment. The Civil Rights Movement for example. Also the moral or paternal responsibility of government can't be ignored. There was widespread support for the death penalty in the UK when it was abolished in 1965. A government striving to improve itself and the people it serves is commendable and feasible.

[syntheticgerbil]

Missed this earlier:

I live in Texas too and consider myself a pretty liberally minded person. The department I work in has many gun enthusiasts who own AR-15's. I don't personally think they need those AR-15's, but I would never classify any of them as mentally unstable. They're all responsible people, many ex-military, who take gun safety seriously. I feel completely safe around them both inside and outside of work. I think making a blanket statement like that harms the conversation because it's so quickly dismissed by the other side (with good reason).

I really don't care if they are responsible or not, it's risky. What if they flip out with PTSD? What if something happens because how depressed many become when returning from the war? I tend to hear nothing but a goldmine of mental issues dealing with soldiers coming back from wherever in the Middle East.

Their big guns should stay with the military base, they shouldn't be sitting in their homes. What are they using them for anyway? Are they seriously thinking if a burglar comes in their house they need to shoot them up with 30 bullet holes? These guys are trained, so therefore a hand gun should suffice for anything they need as far as intrusion and danger.

Also, I think security in schools is a smaller problem than just people who spray bullets for mass murder in general. The fact that bullets get sprayed in schools is one of the many outcomes from allowing such easy access to weapons.

I guess you could put Swat team members all over every public school, but then wouldn't you just have someone going nuts in a supermarket with his machine gun instead?

[ThunderPeel2001]

Your point about the public having to want change for it to be effective is a little simplistic. A rational and motivated minority will do regardless of the majority sentiment. The Civil Rights Movement for example. Also the moral or paternal responsibility of government can't be ignored. There was widespread support for the death penalty in the UK when it was abolished in 1965. A government striving to improve itself and the people it serves is commendable and feasible.

I can't remember who said it now :-/ I do believe it's true, though. I know the newspapers reported that the public was against abolition in 1965, but I just don't see how it could have gone through if people weren't prepared to accept change (it doesn't have to be a majority, obviously). Same goes for the Civil Rights movement. Both were argued for 100's of years prior, but the powers that be and the public weren't prepared to accept them then, and I don't believe any government (other than a fascist one) can force through reform before the public is ready for it.

[Luftmensch]

I really don't care if they are responsible or not, it's risky. What if they flip out with PTSD? What if something happens because how depressed many become when returning from the war? I tend to hear nothing but a goldmine of mental issues dealing with soldiers coming back from wherever in the Middle East.

On the one hand, I agree: The general public has no use for assault weapons. Self defense and hunting firearms are reasonable demands, since those are instruments that have an obvious place in civilian life. Where I can see assault weapons making sense is if you have a well-trained and regulated militia that owns its own weapons. If citizens could only legally own assault firearms by swearing an oath and participating in regular mandatory drills and testing, I for one would feel more comfortable, not less, knowing I live near a gun owner.

On the other hand, think of it this way: If you were to run a kitchen, how would you stop your chefs from stabbing each other? It seems like a silly question, but you have a whole room full of open flames, blunt instruments, and hella sharp knives. How do you make sure noone gets hurt if one of the chefs goes mental? Do you lock all the knives away and make sure only the sous chef has the key? Do you make sure there's an armed guard watching everyone? Do you set up gates and fences between the parts of the kitchen so noone can reach each other if they became armed? All of these seem like crazy solutions and they totally are. Nothing is physically preventing anyone from stabbing each other, but you don't need anything because you have an environment where everyone knows they can trust each other.

While I don't think every schmoe needs to have an AK in their arsenal (or have an arsenal at all), I think it's possible to have an environment where weapons are abundant and you still can feel safe. You have to trust the police to protect you, and society not to kill you. That's not something that you can necessarily directly legislate, but it is something you can influence with media and by shifting the public discourse to be less isolationist and paranoid and more towards looking out for each other and trusting people. This is oversimplifying things, but when people feel like they can trust each other and the police to look out for them if someone did do something bad, we'd have a much easier time dealing with people having guns. And for that matter, we'd have a much easier time dealing with not having guns.

[syntheticgerbil]

On the other hand, think of it this way: If you were to run a kitchen, how would you stop your chefs from stabbing each other? It seems like a silly question, but you have a whole room full of open flames, blunt instruments, and hella sharp knives. How do you make sure noone gets hurt if one of the chefs goes mental? Do you lock all the knives away and make sure only the sous chef has the key? Do you make sure there's an armed guard watching everyone? Do you set up gates and fences between the parts of the kitchen so noone can reach each other if they became armed? All of these seem like crazy solutions and they totally are. Nothing is physically preventing anyone from stabbing each other, but you don't need anything because you have an environment where everyone knows they can trust each other.

If I did run one, I wouldn't care because in general you don't tend to have mass slaughters in kitchens from the use of butcher's knives and stove burners.

Maybe if there were a giant meat grinder in the back room and a forklift you could use to shove all of the chefs into it with at once, I'd consider some delegation. But man, what a shitty kitchen.

While I don't think every schmoe needs to have an AK in their arsenal (or have an arsenal at all), I think it's possible to have an environment where weapons are abundant and you still can feel safe. You have to trust the police to protect you, and society not to kill you.

That's a very strange utopia. Is there a society out there with abundant weapons and lots of trust among fellow citizens? I think in general the safe proven route tends to show that societies without abundant weapons have much smaller amounts of gun murder. I think I'd rather just be safe than test it.

[ThunderPeel2001]

While I don't think every schmoe needs to have an AK in their arsenal (or have an arsenal at all), I think it's possible to have an environment where weapons are abundant and you still can feel safe. You have to trust the police to protect you, and society not to kill you. That's not something that you can necessarily directly legislate, but it is something you can influence with media and by shifting the public discourse to be less isolationist and paranoid and more towards looking out for each other and trusting people. This is oversimplifying things, but when people feel like they can trust each other and the police to look out for them if someone did do something bad, we'd have a much easier time dealing with people having guns. And for that matter, we'd have a much easier time dealing with not having guns.

That's pretty much the entire message of Bowling for Columbine. I was in the US when I saw that, and I came out of the cinema suddenly relaxed -- it's true that the TV I'd been watching was selling fear, and it had been getting to me without my knowledge.

[Luftmensch]

Well, the US is in the unfortunate position that it's legally obligated to allow its citizens to have weapons, so we're forced to think of workarounds and alternative solutions.

I'll also note that in a typical good-sized restaurant kitchen, a single person with a knife could easily kill 1/4 of the kitchen staff before he's taken out himself. It's just an analogy for a society at large. Since knives are a necessity in a kitchen, and guns are, unfortunately, a legal necessity in the US, it might be useful to compare the social dynamic.

Hah, I've been avoiding mentioning Bowling for Columbine. It seemed too easy. While we're picking easy stuff, here's Eddie Izard:

[ThunderPeel2001]

Well, the US is in the unfortunate position that it's legally obligated to allow its citizens to have weapons, so we're forced to think of workarounds and alternative solutions.

Or, you know, draft another amendment. It seems crazy that the US's laws are based on a document that's supposedly able to plan for every eventuality. Guess what, the Constitution might get something wrong!

Also, as many people are fond of pointing out, the "right to bear arms" comes with the caveat that you're part of an "organized militia". I don't see many people heeding that part of the Constitution, which means it all just boils down to one simple thing: The public don't want to relinquish their guns, and they'll argue any way they can to keep them.

[syntheticgerbil]

I'll also note that in a typical good-sized restaurant kitchen, a single person with a knife could easily kill 1/4 of the kitchen staff before he's taken out himself. It's just an analogy for a society at large. Since knives are a necessity in a kitchen, and guns are, unfortunately, a legal necessity in the US, it might be useful to compare the social dynamic.

How do you know anyone would even die from the knife? By the time he kills one person, I'm sure everyone will be out of there. Does this chef have amazing knife throwing abilities that hit the vitals of many at a time while they are running away? I guess you think chefs are ninjas?

I thought it was already established much earlier in this thread that guns are not equal to knives by far. Assault weapons on top of that.

[Colourful Stuff]

Couldn't Obama appeal to American's sense of tradition and the frontier spirit buy limiting the right to bear arms to muzzle loading long rifles? Mass shootings would only ever be conducted by well drilled yet disgruntled civil war reenactment societies.

[jeremywc]

Your argument appears to be "there's always going to be crazy people who will manage to find ways of killing people -- guns aren't necessarily the problem".

My argument is that guns are a piece of the problem, but not the entire problem.

[syntheticgerbil]

Couldn't Obama appeal to American's sense of tradition and the frontier spirit buy limiting the right to bear arms to muzzle loading long rifles? Mass shootings would only ever be conducted by well drilled yet disgruntled civil war reenactment societies.

I wish. People u-turning multiple times during a drive by shooting so that they have time to clean their gun barrel and insert the leadball is a hilarious idea to me.

[Luftmensch]

Or, you know, draft another amendment. It seems crazy that the US's laws are based on a document that's supposedly able to plan for every eventuality. Guess what, the Constitution might get something wrong!

Also, as many people are fond of pointing out, the "right to bear arms" comes with the caveat that you're part of an "organized militia". I don't see many people heeding that part of the Constitution, which means it all just boils down to one simple thing: The public don't want to relinquish their guns, and they'll argue any way they can to keep them.

People talk a lot about that clause, but the Supreme Court has already ruled on that matter. The militia clause is popular to point out, but unfortunately US law's current official position is that assault weapons are protected under the second amendment for private ownership.

On the bright side, this makes an academically interesting situation where the government is forced to work with one hand behind its back and come up with creative solutions. I won't say that the US is especially good at solving its problems, but I think that artificial boundaries make for some interesting results.

[brkl]

This was fun:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-16-2013/there-goes-the-boom?xrs=share_copy

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-16-2013/there-goes-the-boom---atf?xrs=share_copy

I'll actually post some views in the evening, super busy now.

[ThunderPeel2001]

People talk a lot about that clause, but the Supreme Court has already ruled on that matter. The militia clause is popular to point out, but unfortunately US law's current official position is that assault weapons are protected under the second amendment for private ownership.

Interesting, but that doesn't change the fact that laws can be overturned. I don't get the American mentality that just because something was added to the constitution over two hundreds years ago, that it can never be changed. Reminds me of that Churchill's quote: "You can always trust American to do the right thing... once they've tried everything else."

My argument is that guns are a piece of the problem, but not the entire problem.

Meaning?

[I_smell]

He means if you take guns away, people will still be killing each other. Now here's an equally meak input by me!

Forgive me for being close-minded, but I live in England and I can't even imagine a world where my friends and family are buying guns. I can imagine liking cars, or computers, or aeroplanes, but if it's guns then in my head that's just a maniac.

[James]

He means if you take guns away, people will still be killing each other.

Whilst accurate, this sort of point (which is made often in discussions on varied topics, and which I've been guilty of making in the past) isn't really relevant. If we reject everything that doesn't completely solve all instances of a particular class of problem, we would never improve anything at all. I sometimes wonder if there's a mentality that all risk is equal, and that all things fall into one of three categories: impossible, possible, and certain, and that any gradation finer than that is irrelevant. By this thinking, if your action doesn't move the probability from one of these categories to another, you might as well not have bothered. Which is clearly nonsense.

Of course changing gun law won't stop people killing each other, or even stop them killing each other with guns, but it might very well reduce it a whole lot. It's relevant to try to ascertain what sort of reduction that might be, and whether it's worth the costs of the change (mainly the personal liberty issue, I'd say). That people will still be crazy and still kill one another doesn't really matter if the total death rate is cut by, say, 75%, or the total number of deaths is reduced by 5000, or whatever. I'm not saying those are remotely realistic figures – I have no idea one way or the other – but these are the things that matter. Those, and working out some way of comparing that with the financial costs of gun control, and the ideological principles it would violate. That can be a difficult comparison to make, and even harder to agree on, because you're comparing entirely different category of thing, but that's the essence of the issue. The inevitability of some crime is, in my view, nothing but a distraction.

I hope that wasn't too confrontational. I wasn't having a go or anything – I just think it's a bit of a trap. And, to be fair, perhaps the point is that we shouldn't obsess over the gun control issue to the exclusion of other important issues. But if that's the case, say that, and start that conversation.

[Lu]

I think a lot of assumptions are being made about what jeremywc meant with that. So allow me to add one of my own! I thought he meant that it's a complicated issue with more sides to it than "ban guns, fix problems". I don't think that that genie is going back into the bottle; gun ownership is essentially a part of american culture (accurate?) so the complications would have to do with regulations and enforcing those regulations. If even half of that earlier linked Daily Show segment is accurate, you could probably lower the gun violence a lot simply by patching that stupid nonsense up. At least, that's another assumption one could make, right?

When people started making violent games an issue again, I felt so exhausted. Not this shit again. But when Obama announced that research fund I was glad. Research the shit out of it, because I think all of us here are reasonably sure that violent games do not cause violent behaviour. Then they've spent 10 million dollars on what we already know and the NRA can shut the fuck up. Creepy out of touch dickheads.

But hey, Jeremywc, what did you mean by that?

[Gormongous]

Interesting, but that doesn't change the fact that laws can be overturned. I don't get the American mentality that just because something was added to the constitution over two hundreds years ago, that it can never be changed. Reminds me of that Churchill's quote: "You can always trust American to do the right thing... once they've tried everything else."

The problem is not the law itself, but the current interpretation. Overturning that is a longer and much more complicated process. Some legislative body will have to make a law directly contradicting the current interpretation, the legal challenge to the law will have to make it to the Supreme Court, and then the makeup of the nine justices, who serve for life, will have to have changed enough to ensure a different outcome. The whole process has a half-life of a generation or so. Change doesn't happen fast, with regards to the Constitution, so it's probably better just to do an end-run around the "well-regulated militia" thing with an assault-weapon ban or whatever, rather than carp about the Supreme Court sucking at its job, which it often does.

[ThunderPeel2001]

The problem is not the law itself, but the current interpretation. Overturning that is a longer and much more complicated process. Some legislative body will have to make a law directly contradicting the current interpretation, the legal challenge to the law will have to make it to the Supreme Court, and then the makeup of the nine justices, who serve for life, will have to have changed enough to ensure a different outcome. The whole process has a half-life of a generation or so. Change doesn't happen fast, with regards to the Constitution, so it's probably better just to do an end-run around the "well-regulated militia" thing with an assault-weapon ban or whatever, rather than carp about the Supreme Court sucking at its job, which it often does.

Yeah, that's a good point, actually.