Gun Control 5

[Fragile Bird]

God, you make your fish n chips in a bathtub. They must suck

You make yours in a toaster?

[RWHamel]

You make yours in a toaster?

No.

[danm_999]

I think they did a better job back then, than anyone could do today.

Well, maybe in certain areas, but in a Constitution written in the 21st century you sure as hell wouldn't see a Three Fifths Compromise, or lack the content of the Nineteenth, Twenty Fourth and Twenty Sixth amendments.

[Kalbear]

I don't believe the government has any right to protect its citizens from themselves.

Ah, but here's the problem with that - what if the government is also paying for services - and by that nature, so are you? Take seat belts. Seat belts statistically absolutely save lives. There is no argument against them. But seat belt laws are absolutely restricting the freedom of the people driving. Period. Right? The reason they were introduced was simply because automotive fatalities were so high and so expensive that not having them was much more expensive overall than forcing everyone to have and wear them.

So, gun laws. Is it more or less expensive to regulate heavily guns? How about cars? Alcohol? Tobacco? These things don't just have a cost to the person using them. The problem with the argument about 'your rights end where my body begins' is that there are a lot of overlapping rights areas that are a bit murkier.

Also, FLOW: while those are really awesome stats, here's one: 30,000 gun related fatalities each year. Far more per capita than any other country in the world. You are likely right that more armed people would stop massacres (though there are also many other ways to mitigate them); how many deaths do more armed people in general cause? Because while 20 kids got killed in this massacre, over 500 kids die each year because of bad gun safety. And yes, kids die in all sort of other ways, that's very true; it doesn't make it any less true that 500 kids die each year from gun accidents.

[RWHamel]

Well, maybe in certain areas, but in a Constitution written in the 21st century you sure as hell wouldn't see a Three Fifths Compromise, or lack the content of the Nineteenth, Twenty Fourth and Twenty Sixth amendments.

Sure, it would be right in there along with the proper uses of torture and rendition for those who illegally copy songs and movies.

[Horza]

Oh Megan.

After doing her usual 'we can't do anything about [x] because regulation is hard and could inconvenience someone' schtick, Megan McArdle manages to hit upon the single dumbest proposal in the history of US gun politics:

I’d also like us to encourage people to gang rush shooters, rather than following their instincts to hide; if we drilled it into young people that the correct thing to do is for everyone to instantly run at the guy with the gun, these sorts of mass shootings would be less deadly, because even a guy with a very powerful weapon can be brought down by 8-12 unarmed bodies piling on him at once. Would it work? Would people do it? I have no idea; all I can say is that both these things would be more effective than banning rifles with pistol grips.

That's right, it would be preferential for children to be instructed to run at a gunman rather than reduce the availability of semiautomatic rifles and pistols. This may or may not be effective, but that's not really the reason it won't happen, instead:

But I doubt we're going to tell people to gang rush mass shooters, because that would involve admitting that there is no mental health service or "reasonable gun control" which is going to prevent all of these attacks. Which is to say, admitting that we have no box big enough to completely contain evil.

uh. So, everything that may actually work to reduce the numbers of these attacks shouldn't be considered because they won't prevent all of them, so why not try something that will require a huge and extensive cultural program to override a fundamental human impluse but at least won't reduce people's freedom to own and carry semiautomatic weapons.

ETA: Oh, and this is a libertarian arguing for a collective solution to a social problem which mirrors the instincts of that most individualistic of animals, the

.

[Aemon Stark]

So, I take it from this that your theory is, that because they didn't have a good understanding of disease that it somehow invalidates the constitution they came up with in 1787. Sorry, fail.

Always nice when someone pops in for some snark. If you'd read my original response to RiL, you'd note that I explicitly pointed out that the Constitution was most certainly not around in 1776. But whatever.

If I was going to use a toaster, I don't think your suicide barriers would work.

You know, I think being flippant about this is entirely uncalled for. Suicide barriers - and gun control - reduce access to ways of killing oneself and have real effect on reducing the rates of completed suicides. It is not inevitable that someone with suicidal thoughts will actually develop a plan or intent to carry through on them. Access to firearms and bridges make impulsive acts much easier, along with access to various medications and the like.

I'm glad I'm tired or I'd have said something much less restrained in response.

[Eddison]

So this is a philosophical tangent and not an attempt at equivalency: Do Syrian rebels have a right to firearms to defend themselves against repression from their government? If so, at what point does this right trump community safety concerns? What is the threshold and how do the rebels oppose repression when the tools to oppose repression have been banned by a police state (absent foreign interlocuteurs

[Aemon Stark]

I think it's debatable that the "Free Syrian Army" doesn't have its own brand of repression in mind. In any case, better to start a new thread on that topic.

[Eddison]

It is the civil unrest du jour, but it is the abstract scenario that I'm interested in. Choose your favorite freedom fighters.

[Aemon Stark]

Well to take at least one example, the rebels have established themselves in hospitals, making them legitimate military targets. It's despicable.

[Datepalm]

Syria appears to have had considerably more stringent gun laws, as well as significantly lower ownership rates - you know, like the rest of the world - than the US before the (Syrian) civil war. For the love of christ, what is it with Americans and this need to fantasize yourself in end-times, all out war scenarios all the fucking time? No other country makes actual policy based on "how badass will I look when the zombie apocalypse happens?" Crisis of masculinity much?

[Eddison]

Choose a group more palatable to you. Or imagine that they are better behaved. How then would you respond to my questions?

I'm just trying to understand the nuance of the prevalent position here. People seem to support the tradeoff in individual liberties for the practical community safety benefits. This tradeoff is made easier when the perception is that the particular liberty serves no legitimate purpose...that is, the scenario where it might be of value is unlikely.

But there are places in the world where oppression is real and I'm curious if people's calculus on these issues changes in those circumstances.

[Relic]

Apparently, the town of Newton has a "long standing history and cultural tradition in guns."

Newtown's legislative council had heard enough: residents complaining about loud gunfire, the Connecticut town's small police station inundated with phone calls from frightened residents. So, a few months ago, they tried to restrict when and where residents could shoot their guns in an effort to quiet the complaints. Instead, they got an earful from gun-control opponents.

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t2

Can this be dismissed as meaningless information? I believe the town had something like one homicide in the last 10 years, so you can say Newtown was a model of responsible gun ownership.

[Shryke]

FB,

As respectfully as possible I've never understood the inclusion of suicides because if someone really wants to kill themselves the presense or absence of a firearm is not going to stop them.

Not true. I linked a few things on this back in ... thread 3 I think.

But just in general, suicide is most often an action taken under a temporary state brought on by a stressor. If the person in question cannot easily end their life at the time and find a way they believe is good to do so, they will most often simply not commit suicide.

[ShowOverBooks]

Not true. I linked a few things on this back in ... thread 3 I think.

But just in general, suicide is most often an action taken under a temporary state brought on by a stressor. If the person in question cannot easily end their life at the time and find a way they believe is good to do so, they will most often simply not commit suicide.

Not that that is a favourable outcome.

If they don't go that way, they sometimes opt for 'death by cop'.

Society would be better served by offering a dignified and painless way to 'opt out.'.

[Shryke]

Syria appears to have had considerably more stringent gun laws, as well as significantly lower ownership rates - you know, like the rest of the world - than the US before the (Syrian) civil war. For the love of christ, what is it with Americans and this need to fantasize yourself in end-times, all out war scenarios all the fucking time? No other country makes actual policy based on "how badass will I look when the zombie apocalypse happens?" Crisis of masculinity much?

Maybe religion? America has always loved it's "end of the world" predictions (see: The Great Disappointement) and tied them up with religion and like 40% of Americans believe the Rapture will occur within their lifetimes (http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/jesus-christs-return-to-earth/).

Mostly though, I think it's not so much a "end times" thing as it is a power fantasy combined with a love of some vague conception of "freedom" and defending it from evil oppressors who hate freedom or something.

[Shryke]

Not that that is a favourable outcome.

If they don't go that way, they sometimes opt for 'death by cop'.

Society would be better served by offering a dignified and painless way to 'opt out.'.

No, society would be better served not allowing people in temporary mental states to make life altering decisions. Most especially permanently life-altering/ending ones.

[ShowOverBooks]

No, society would be better served not allowing people in temporary mental states to make life altering decisions. Most especially permanently life-altering/ending ones.

Everyone dies. Grow up.

[Shryke]

Everyone dies. Grow up.

Not everybody kills themselves or dies young.

In fact, we generally think people dying young is a bad thing.