Gun Control Discussion 2

[TerraPrime]

More guns. More bullets. More more. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

@DanteGabriel, Regarding self-manufacturing, have you seen some of these things, both what we have now and what’s coming down the pipeline? You can already get an AK47, AR-15, and even scarier, plastic handgun that you get through a metal detector. That’s scary as hell.

 

[DanteGabriel]

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

@DanteGabriel, Regarding self-manufacturing, have you seen some of these things, both what we have now and what’s coming down the pipeline? You can already get an AK47, AR-15, and even scarier, plastic handgun that you get through a metal detector. That’s scary as hell.

 

I knew that plastic guns that could avoid metal detectors were possible, but not the AKs bit. Feels like, in the societal competition between offense and defense, offense is pulling away.

Just reinforces my conviction that this has to be solved through culture.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

 

Quote

There are surely studies from academics outside the U.S., or within the U.S. not using federal funding, regarding what Michael is asking for. In fact,

 this editorial from Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo discusses an OpEd in the Washington Post from a journalist who worked on a big analysis over at Five Thirty Eight which looked at the results in Australia and the UK after bans and buyback programs.

This could all be a useful starting point, but I think Marshal's TPM editorial is on the right track: there is no "quick fix". Public policy on health issues tends to be incrementalist, implementing multiple different things to lead to a positive effect; the solutions to gun violence are going to be the same thing, lots of incrementals that attempt to ultimately change the underlying culture that privileges the mystique of the gun over the well-being and safety of the American people.

Thank you, @Ran.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

32 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I knew that plastic guns that could avoid metal detectors were possible, but not the AKs bit. Feels like, in the societal competition between offense and defense, offense is pulling away.

Just reinforces my conviction that this has to be solved through culture.

I don't think the assault rifle types can, sorry if my post conflated the two. 

As to solving the culture, that's just not going to happen. It's too deeply ingrained at this point. Honestly at this point I think the die is cast and there's no going back. Every route I can conceive of to address the gun violence in America has too many pitfalls that will undermine the effort. A Constitutional Amendment can't happen. Congress won't do anything, and even if they did, a future Congress would almost assuredly undo what they did. Even if legislation does make it through and stick, it might not hold up in the courts. Certain states can succeed, but how much does that matter if a neighboring state has incredibly loose gun laws (see Chicago and Gary, IN)? It just feels like there aren't any political answers or solutions to address gun violence in America, and the culture won't change. Too many people have an unhealthy attachment to their firearms, and nothing will change that or require that they give them up.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

From Ran's 538 article

Overall, the effects of Britain’s and Australia’s gun buybacks aren’t as clear as headlines after U.S. mass shootings suggest when urging U.S. officials to follow their lead. Some of the possible positive effects — in particular, a reduction in mass shootings — are hard to measure because the phenomenon itself is rare before and after. When it comes to gun homicides and suicides, neither reform has a clear, positive record.

And, here is the crux of my argument as to why a ban won't work in America. I don't have stats but I'd reckon I high percentage of murders and violent crimes are committed with illegal guns, and that trend would continue after a ban. Nothing will stop the black market of illegal guns. As the next paragraph in the 538 article said, why you might not see a rise in England or Australia is because they are islands, hence smuggling being harder.

@DanteGabriel, I agree wholeheartedly that a culture change is what will ultimately reduce violent crimes in the U.S.. How can we do that? Very hard. Most violent crimes happen in poor areas of America. Community outreach, LE and members of the communities coming together to solve problems are some first steps we can take. See, I mean, just look at Rap where killing is glorified in some cases (although not as bad as it was in the 80's and 90's). Its definitely a culture epidemic. I wish our government could find a way to get people with no hope, other than to sell drug and give their lives to a gang, a way out. I'm not one that would say, "just go to college", it much more complex than that. I had a scathing post for you I decided not to post. It wasn't worth it. But, this political divide has to end. We need to find a way to meet in the middle (on some issues) and try and do right By everyone. Your statement that basically because I say I'm in the center is just an excuse to not give credence to the left and secretly support Trump is BS. I am center and don't affiliate with either party, because I hold values on both sides. I don't see why it has to be one or the other. And, that is why we can't get a dann thing accomplished in this country. I will look at any issue, and then decide which side I support. I don't hold one issue so dear to my heart that I will always vote one way or the other. I also wouldn't vote for a lunatic like Trump even if I held all his values, which I clearly don't.

I come from a bi-racial family. 3 sisters who are half black. Nephews whose fathers are Mexican. Trump disgusts me. But, he is a testament to the Democratic party ignoring the white middle class, a huge portion of their constituency for a very long time. Trump didn't happen over night. He seen where he could get the votes and went and got them. Its a shame. But, a lesson the Democratic party should take to heart, and earn the respect of the segment of the population. 

[Erik of Hazelfield]

I think the law and the culture follow each other. You’ll have a hard time changing gun culture as long as the second amendment is there, enshrined right in the country’s constitution. On the other hand it’s completely impossible to change any laws, let alone the constitution, without a change in culture. 

The thing that truly needs to go is the notion that burglars and murderers are creeping around your house at night and that you need to defend yourself and your family with guns. It’s ridiculous, but if that’s the reality you think you’re living in then I see why you’d want a gun.

 

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

The thing that truly needs to go is the notion that burglars and murderers are creeping around your house at night and that you need to defend yourself and your family with guns. It’s ridiculous, but if that’s the reality you think you’re living in then I see why you’d want a gun.

Exactly. And odds are having a gun will do nothing, but get you killed. I've had this argument a 1000 times at work. Trust me, I live in West Virginia and work in Virginia, gun nut central both. They won't listen to anything. You walk in any store, you'll see someone carrying. I asked a co-worker of he ever felt like his life was in danger. He said no, but better safe than sorry. I don't understand the logic. But, it is what it is. I think maybe @James Arryn said it before, it's the macho man syndrome or what have you. I can't explain it all. 

 

[DanteGabriel]

One way to start to change the culture: destroy the NRA as it is currently composed. Turn it back into a group for gun owners and sportsmen/women instead of a vicious gun manufacturer's lobby that stokes fear and glorifies violence in order to sell more guns. I have no idea how to change the NRA in that way, but the rabid gun nut wing took over in the late 70s, so maybe there can be a counter coup somehow.

As for the notion that the Democratic Party has ignored the "white middle class" -- I'd argue instead that the problem is more that Republicans have been feeding white racial resentment since Nixon. Democrats have tried to address the economic concerns of the white working class but they cannot compete with the culture war red meat that Republicans have fed their constituents for generations.

And the emphasis on the "white middle class" is another form of privilege. The very formulation of that demographic is telling. Why can't Democrats advocate for all middle class people? Is there some critical difference between white middle class people, and others in the same tax bracket? Why are we spending so much energy trying to save a dying, carcinogenic dinosaur of an industry like coal, which employs tens of thousands of people? Because they're mostly white men. Meanwhile, millions of retail jobs are threatened by automation, but no one in government gives two shits about those workers, because they are heavily minority and female. 

All that said, racial resentment seems so baked in to the "white working class" demographic (400 years of conditioning there) that I don't believe Democrats will ever win them back, unless they wholly sell out minorities. But if you really want to make this argument that Democrats have ignored the white working class, please take it to US Politics.

[Rippounet]

49 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

And, here is the crux of my argument as to why a ban won't work in America. I don't have stats but I'd reckon I high percentage of murders and violent crimes are committed with illegal guns, and that trend would continue after a ban. Nothing will stop the black market of illegal guns. As the next paragraph in the 538 article said, why you might not see a rise in England or Australia is because they are islands, hence smuggling being harder.

Thats's fair. But don't you think less guns (in general) would also mean that they would be harder to get illegally? That given enough time, if the number of legal guns goes down, so will the number of illegal guns?

My point is, other developed countries do, over all, manage to keep guns away from most criminals.

Or do you think that it simply is too late for the US, now that 300 million guns have already been sold?

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

As to solving the culture, that's just not going to happen. It's too deeply ingrained at this point. Honestly at this point I think the die is cast and there's no going back. Every route I can conceive of to address the gun violence in America has too many pitfalls that will undermine the effort. A Constitutional Amendment can't happen. Congress won't do anything, and even if they did, a future Congress would almost assuredly undo what they did.

Most days I agree with you.

Tonight, for some reason, I'm inclined to show a sliver of optimism. What you say is true today, and for the next couple of generations at least.

But in the very long run? Who knows.

Cultures are complex things. And both gun culture and gun violence in the US find their roots in many other social problems: poverty, inequality, discrimination... etc. There also is the importance of a culture of individualism to be considered ; from a philosophical standpoint, American ideology takes a pretty specific view on the relationship between individuals and their government, or between individuals and society as a whole.
Those things might change. I find it hard to believe that Americans will remain idle while inequality keeps exploding in their country. At some point, either the country goes full fascist or it starts considering deep socio-economic changes.
What I'm getting at is that just as Trump's popularity is no accident, neither is Bernie Sanders's. And in the long run I want to believe Sanders's ideas are more likely to win than the reverse. Especially since Trump might burry a certain form of conservatism for future generations -with a bit of luck.
So yeah, maybe nothing much will change in the near future. But wasn't a black president unthinkable fifty years ago? It still happened. It wasn't necessarily the watershed that was expected, but in itself it was something. And for the future, there might be numerous factors that could help a slow but ineluctable socio-economic revolution in the US: demographics, geography, the rise of China, automation... etc. The US may be home to some of the worst traditions in the world, but it is also the place where some of the best were born. I wouldn't give up on it just yet.

 

[DanteGabriel]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I don't think the assault rifle types can, sorry if my post conflated the two. 

 

Sorry, the sloppy phrasing was mine. I did not interpret your original comment to mean that people could make plastic AKs.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

22 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Thats's fair. But don't you think less guns (in general) would also mean that they would be harder to get illegally? That given enough time, if the number of legal guns goes down, so will the number of illegal guns?

My point is, other developed countries do, over all, manage to keep guns away from most criminals.

Or do you think that it simply is too late for the US, now that 300 million guns have already been sold?

We don't know, my gut feeling says no, there would be an influx. Just like with drugs. People dismiss that drugs are illegal and yet people get them we have epidemic, but say that wouldn't be the case with guns, why? What would be the difference. I'll tell you this. I'm not a criminal (I do have assault charges when I was a 20'S drunk and UNSTOPPABLE), but I've had many a opportunity to buy a "hot" gun. Its easy, quite easier than you would think. And, I didn't even go looking for it.

Yes, I honestly think it's too late for the US. Were fucked on that notion. If there is a ban, how do the confiscate weapons already legally owned, that would be a nightmare in and of itself. There would be countless senseless deaths over that. I agree, culture change is the only thing to slow down this epidemic.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

Quote

There are surely studies from academics outside the U.S., or within the U.S. not using federal funding, regarding what Michael is asking for. In fact, this editorial from Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo discusses an OpEd in the Washington Post from a journalist who worked on a big analysis over at Five Thirty Eight which looked at the results in Australia and the UK after bans and buyback programs.

This could all be a useful starting point, but I think Marshal's TPM editorial is on the right track: there is no "quick fix". Public policy on health issues tends to be incrementalist, implementing multiple different things to lead to a positive effect; the solutions to gun violence are going to be the same thing, lots of incrementals that attempt to ultimately change the underlying culture that privileges the mystique of the gun over the well-being and safety of the American people.

Jjust want to copy to thread. A lot of good info. Haven't seen anyone else comment on it though, as it seems to contradict the outlook of most posters here.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

Well over half of gun fatalities are suicides – a type of death where rapid fire or high capacity magazines obviously play little to no role.

This certainly is alarming, and @Kalbear, I will admit I was wrong. Suicide does have a place in the gun debate. But, I'll also note that in countries with bans, suicides rates have stayed steady since the ban (from 538 article). But suicide rate does inflate the numbers of added to the homicide rate, which I don't think it should be. Looked at and try and do something about, yes.

[Stego]

I'm 100% for gun control and banning. In this utopia, only elite, trained police officers could have a pistol. Every other firearm would be 2-4 round hunting rifles (Long enough barrel to prevent rash suicide). 

But there are (at least) tens of millions of these things spread out on private properties across a nation that prides itself on liberty. This is problematic.

But the real problem is 3d printers. How can you ban ones and zeroes? There are billions of rounds of ammunition out there, and it's not hard to make your own if you have a 3d printer. We are 5 years from this all being a theoretical discussion at best.

The moral imperative is clear, however. Guns should absolutely be banned. I fear such a ban in the US will be as useful and effective as the war on drugs. I'm still down for trying. 

[Stego]

15 hours ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

 

 

@James Arryn said it before, it's the macho man syndrome or what have you. I can't explain it all. 

 

It's a coward thing. See also males carrying knives.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Quote

In the wake of the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history, most Americans — regardless of party — favor tightening restrictions on firearms, according to a new NPR/Ipsos poll.

But significant partisan divides remain — and perhaps relatedly, they exist alongside divides in knowledge about guns in America.

Eight-in-10 Americans told the pollsters they favor bans on assault weapons, high-capacity ammunition magazines and "bump stocks," an accessory used by the Las Vegas shooter that allows a semi-automatic rifle to fire like an automatic weapon.

Eight-in-10 likewise said they favor a federal database to track all gun sales. On each of these questions, majorities of Democrats, independents and Republicans all were in favor of the restrictions to some degree.

But the share who were in favor, as well as the intensity of their agreement, varied by party — sometimes widely. For example, 91 percent of Democrats, along with 76 percent of independents and 70 percent of Republicans, said they are for banning assault-style weapons.

However, 74 percent of Democrats "strongly favor" this kind of restriction, as opposed to "somewhat favoring" it, compared to only 48 percent of Republicans "strongly" in favor and 45 percent of independents who said so.

http://www.npr.org/2017/10/13/557433452/poll-majorities-of-both-parties-favor-increased-gun-restrictions

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

30 minutes ago, Stego said:

It's a coward thing. 

Yup.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

2 hours ago, Stego said:

It's a coward thing. See also males carrying knives.

You talking about a pocket knife or a switchblade, Rambo knife or something like that? Im assuming the latter, because I don't know many guys where I come from that don't carry a pocket knife. Very handy. 

[Rippounet]

A short article about the Australian example in Foreign Affairs:
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/australia/2017-10-13/how-australia-passed-gun-control
(It's behind a paywall but you can register to read 1 article a month for free).

Here's the most interesting bit anyway:

Quote

 

Howard’s legislative push was successful for a number of reasons. One was the clever design of the gun buyback. Regulations are normally about punishment, not reward. But in this case, people were getting paid for handing in their guns, most of which were lying idle in their basements. The price offered by the government, moreover, was based on the value of a new gun and thus represented considerably more money than what one could get at a pawnshop. As the duration of the offer was limited, gun holders faced the prospect of missing the opportunity to cash in and then being caught with illegal guns once the law was enacted, so fear of missing out contributed to the scheme’s popularity.

The scale of the atrocity also helped to tip the scales. William Cox, the judge who presided over Martin Bryant’s trial, told me, “It was the sheer magnitude of the atrocity that shook the foundations of Australian society.”Since the beginning of the twentieth century, all of Australia’s previous mass shootings had fewer than 15 casualties, except for two massacres of indigenous Australians in the late 1920s. Port Arthur’s 35 deaths and 23 injuries, by contrast, left the country in shock.

Another factor was speed. Howard and the Liberals responded almost immediately. Philip Alpers, associate professor at the University of Sydney, told The Guardian in 2016 that “at that stage the gun lobby was the ruling lobby in Australia. What happened at Port Arthur is that they were outpaced, outflanked and outwitted by a man who had the power to move in 12 remarkable days.” This deprived the gun lobby of crucial time to organize and delay action. Howard had the goodwill of his landslide election on his side, and he decided to put it to work. “Progress in politics is ninety percent about timing,” he told me. As a conservative politician pushing a left-wing policy, moreover, Howard was able to garner support from his conservative base as well as from the opposition.

Guns were regulated by the states, so Howard needed to convince them all to go along with his program. Two of the most powerful states, Queensland and Western Australia, initially balked. They came around only after Howard threatened to hold a referendum on making gun registration the responsibility of the federal government. Since 90 percent of Australians, including vast majorities in these two states, were in favor of the measures, this threat had teeth. Howard also appeased state governors by allocating generous funding for the buyback program to the tune of $57 million per state.