And just to throw some light at that passive-aggressive shade above your comment:
Many Americans have no delusions about the myth of so-called “US Exceptionalism” because by the very nature of our lived experiences, we are well aware that the country we live in is highly flawed, corrupted and inequitable. We realize that mindless, hateful nationalism isn’t a virtue, no matter what country it may come from, and that America is no exception when it comes to cruel, inhumane and exploitative behavior.
Well, if we’re talking mass shooters, there are three risk factors (approaching it from an epidemiological perspective) that collect well over 90% of them: 1. white, 2. male, 3. history of domestic abuse/violence. A good start is prevention and/or removal of all firearms from the household of anyone who fits that risk profile. Make it active, not passive, and give it teeth. Don’t require a domestic violence conviction; trigger removal for any report of domestic abuse or violence against women/children, regardless of whether it is later recanted. That’s a major potential flaw in any plan. Combine penalties for selling or providing a firearm to anyone in the prohibited class, and combine it with an educational campaign.
Another thing to think about: you (as do most gun rights advocates) approach the purchase, ownership, and use of firearms as an presumed right. There is no reason why that has to be the case. It could just as easily be viewed as a privilege that requires the right holder to take action to benefit from the right. That alone would fundamentally change the whole situation Requiring some sort of education, training, certification, and/or re-certification would be perfectly reasonable. That solves most of your argument that teasing out who is responsible and who is not is difficult/impossible.
Regarding the 2A language in the US Cons.: Look. In the English language (and it’s predecessors Old English & German), the sentence structure [assumption], [absolute statement] is common and clearly means, “if I assume A, then this absolute, B, is true or can be applied.” The Founding Fathers who wrote the document were classically educated, and were well versed in logic and rhetoric. The structure, [example A], [absolute B] would be ridiculed by them, as it is rhetorical foul play to try to extend an example as an absolute. In contrast, the structure, [assumption A], [absolute B] is a standard rhetorical practice, meaning, “this absolute B applies only under the conditions of the assumption A.” That is the exact structure of the 2A: Assumption is that a well-regulated militia is formed, and those who are members of said militia shall have absolute right to keep and bear arms.
There is also a fundamental logical inconsistency in the position of all but the most extreme gun rights advocates. The 2A, if you ignore the predicate clause requiring a well-regulated militia, is absolute. If you sharpie over the predicate clause, it just leaves “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” In other words, no regulation at all can be tolerated. By that reading, the 5 year-old neighbor kid has every right to go to Target and plop down his birthday and allowance money to buy a Browning Auto. Charles fucking Manson has every right to have a AK-47 in his prison cell.
I think we can agree that such an interpretation is untenable, to the point of being unthinkable. But if we interpret it in any other way, we can’t redact the predicate clause, because that’s the only thing that saves us from chaos. If the predicate clause is in play, how would you interpret “A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state?” How do you include that saving grace without taking it for it’s full and literal meaning?
Every single one of those “rights” is more restricted than firearm possession. I enjoy driving on twisty roads. My right to do so is restricted by state and federal authorities. I would love to drive an open-wheeled racecar on the Interstate. My right to do so is restricted. I can only do so on a private road away from the public, and the owners of such a road or track have every right to require me to establish some form of certification or licensure before I’m allowed to do so.
Let’s take a different example. Smokers have heavily curtailed rights, face significant penalties for their choice to engage in risky personal behavior, and are widely prevented from exposing others involuntarily to their activity. That wasn’t always the case. We now have the The list just goes on and on. Every thing we do is more heavily regulated and enforced than firearm possession and carry.
My point is we have problems that are unique to America, just like every other nation in the world have problems that are unique to them. Would you suggest every other country who has issue just “Do what we do in America.”? No.
From a statistics stand point, even before the UK and Australia (to name two) changed their laws to be much more restrictive, their murder rate was still much lower than in the US. Of course I’m not saying that accessibility and number play NO role, nor are they not a vector in affecting the numbers. But it isn’t the ONLY vector nor the most important, IMO.
Of course if you magically removed all guns overnight, the methods of violence would change, and the actual death rate would probably be lower. But we can’t magically do that, so the people least likely to obey new laws that either further restrict ownership, or require a turn in/buy back are those same people more likely to use them for violence.
But the disconnect here is - you and others are OK for this loss of rights and I am not.
Just like one could argue a border wall, stop and frisk, the police linked to all the Amazon Ring doorbells, or crypto back doors would all lead to better public safety and less deaths - but most people here would find any of those things unaccepatble because they violate their rights.
I’ve said before, I can understand why someone who isn’t using something or doesn’t really care about something has no qualms giving it up. But I hope to at least impress the idea that for people who do care about it, it is just like all of those other freedoms and rights so often champions here (and rightly so.)
Yep, it appears this has had a dramatic effect. It is important to note what DIDN’T seem to have an effect: More police, militarization of police, mass incarceration.
Hrrm - let’s do a per capita graph to get a more accurate picture.
Yes, there has a been an increase in the NUMBER of murders, but due to there being more people, the per capita rate has only had a small uptick. Hopefully this isn’t a trend.
But what is a trend is suicides going up, even on the per-capita level.
I even know someone who committed suicide 2 years ago. His wife and sister-in-law were both MDs and he had a failed attempt the week before that he convince them was just a medication goof up. Suicide can be extremely difficult to predict even when they are surrounded by people who should be aware of the warning signs (assuming there are warning signs). I have no idea of what law one would craft that would have any significant effect on this other than a total ban. I have to concede if there were magically no guns, it would make success less likely. Although Japan has very few guns and a high suicide rate. If we knew how to stop suicide, we would be doing it, but we really don’t know.
It is a way different problem than homicides. I realize if all one sees is nails, then a hammer is the obvious solution, but some of them are screws and a hammer isn’t the tool for the job. I don’t quite know your position so I am not going to put words in your mouth. If the solution is “ban them all and turn them all in”, then I suppose one would see a reduction. If there is some other solution suggested, I really don’t see how that is going to effect suicide numbers. At best it will delay it. I’ll concede that a waiting period does seem to have a small effect on suicides, and while I could live with that, after your first gun there is no real point to it. Like in my example above, the gun had been owned for over a decade.
What? Both of those things still exist. I remember having to get off the highway due to a jumper several years ago. (not sure how that turned out.)
I never said that, and in fact that is the one non-felony violation that can remove your gun rights in most states (if not all of them.) Now there is a problem there in that the ENFORCEMENT of these laws are pretty lax in a lot of places. Just because there is a conviction they may not submit the flag to NICS, nor do they physically check ownership.
I’d try to answer more questions, but woo there is a lot to go through and I can’t get to them all right now.
Right. And I am saying that is a misrepresentation of my point. I mean if I wanted to be an asshole (bigger asshole?) I could go through for a month on BB and point out that “one cares about such and such position more than the safety of the rest of society”. I have given lots of other examples where people want more fascism, more surveillance, more “security” all in the name of public safety, and if one were to make such a comment about say the border wall they would rightly be shouted down.
It is extremely frustrating that I can’t seem to get across the point - even if one disagrees with it - that this is at a base level fundamentally about rights and instead I’m just an asshole with my dick-replacing toys who doesn’t care kids are getting murdered. I suppose anyone against back door crypto is just an asshole who doesn’t care people are trading kiddie porn.
I can’t explore this as well as I’d like now. But I don’t have all the answers. I do know that many of the solutions suggested either wouldn’t have much real effect, or are so extreme that I don’t agree with the loss of rights even if it may have a positive effect.
Like I don’t know how to stop terrorism, but I know the TSA has very little to do with it. Warrant-less spying by the NSA and the FBI and public surveillance has helped yield results, but I am not sure I am willing to give them that much free reign.
But as just a quick bullet point list on things I see that would help reduce the homicide rate:
Decriminalize drugs. All drugs, even the bad ones. (I honestly think full legalization would reduce a lot of crime, though it may lead to worse health issues. This would have to be balanced out with public health services. The programs in Europe where drugs are decriminalize, and they even provide some drugs to users, has seen positive results.) Release all non-violent drug offenders instantly.
State based but federally assisted economic renewal programs and public transport. People turn to crime due to lack of opportunity. Opportunity is severely limited if one doesn’t have a car, or a safe reliable way to get to work. I live in KC and it is a mixed back with our public transport. But I’ve read several articles showing direct correlations with access to transportation with how much money they make. Even if the area you live in is stagnant, if you can travel to work the number of opportunities open up and there is more upward mobility.
Tighten up existing processes. Have an issue where departments aren’t properly sending flags to NICS? Fix that. If one does want to target specific people, why not start with the 80,000 per year who get rejected by NICS? If there is someone likely to be looking to get a gun who isn’t supposed to have one, these are them. If one’s rights change due to a violation and conviction, report it to NICS and then actually follow through to make sure they are no long gun owners. Have weapons violation? Actually charge the people instead of a slap on the wrist.
For accidents: The good news is, these are getting pretty low. There has been multiple campaigns in the gun world to get people to properly store their firearms. Gun locks are freely available from most manufactures as well as the police.
Offer more safety program through state wildlife departments, including possibly a school outreach program. Locking things up is the #1 safety thing to do, but educating people on the seriousness if they encounter one in the wild can only help.
I don’t think an actual safe is need to safely store firearms, but if one wants to make this mandatory, there should be a state supported program either give or provide at cost a standard approved safe if one qualifies based on need. (These aren’t completely burglar proof, but a deterrent.)
For Suicides:
I don’t know. I am not a mental health expert and I don’t think we really know how to stop suicide effectively. Or if we do, we don’t have the programs in place to help the people who need it. The suicide prevention programs we have do seem to help and so I say continue to support them.
I have to get back to work, y’all have a good day.
And our unique problem is not enough regulation of gun ownership. And way too much gun violence. Let’s get some American Laws to change that. Inspired by others that already work - but they’ll be our very own!!!
Do we have to do this every single time? Is there no way we can take the endless drain circling of talking about gun regulation and move it to a different thread instead of having it in a thread talking about the deaths of 4 of our fellow human beings?
Do we still have a Firearms thread? Maybe focus all the conversation about this specific mass shooting to this specific thread, offload the gun wanking to the Gun Wanking Firearms thread, and then rinse and repeat when the next mass shooting happens tomorrow?
There is much that you said that I disagree strongly with, but the quote above is just downright offensive, and is especially revealing of your attitude towards homicide victims.
As I’m sure you know, many people don’t have the option of “staying out of certain neighborhoods.” Your “etc.” undoubtedly covers a lot of ground, but statistics suggest it must include a lot of great advice such as “don’t have abusive or violent family members.”
I’ve got more to say to you but I’m going to stop now before I end up violating th BBS code of conduct.
There’s a term for putting the burden of a wound one sustains in a shooting perpetrated by another on the wounded person himself. I believe that when a comment engages in the behaviour you pointed out it is a flaggable violation of the BBS code of conduct.
One would think posting the obligatory cartoons, “no way to stop this” links, and lists of predictable gun-nut responses at the beginning of American mass-shooting topics would be enough to dissuade the ammosexuals from publicly and disingenuously pissing their pants about their gun collections being taken away, but it just delays them.
So yes, maybe a dedicated gun-control topic we can refer them to at the top of each mass shooting topic would work.
We had one. Is it still there… I get that it’s a hot button topic, but I just wish that these threads would respect the dead a little more and not devolve into this.
A safe storage law really should make an impact (I’ve made this point before, and cited the articles). A 5 minute delay from onset of suicidal impulse reduces follow-through by 30%, a 10 minute delay reduces follow-through by 60%, and a 15 minute delay reduces follow-through by 85%. Let’s say it takes 5 minutes to get a firearm out of the safe and load it. That would make an immediate 30% impact on suicide by firearm. At ~15k deaths a year, a 30% decrease is ~4,500 fewer suicides per year.
I respectfully disagree. The discussion of what to do about these events can’t really happen without a discussion on what to do about the tools be used to engage in these mass murders.
Focusing on those directly affected by this tragedy is important, relevant, and necessary. But so is a discussion on how to avoid these tragedies in the future, and the one commonality in most of these acts is the presence of firearms, most of which seem to have been acquired legally.
If the Authors are going to post about these events, then talking about all aspects of them is appropriate, even if depressingly little is changing (at any level) to prevent them.
A rare moment where I disagree with you then. Maybe it’s because all we really get when it devolves into a discussion on gun rights/regulation is talking past each other. I personally find it frustrating and demoralizing, maybe because it reveals that there is so little common ground, and very little political will for actually protecting the public from getting shot at random?
I suppose anyone against back door crypto is just an asshole who doesn’t care people are trading kiddie porn. 
