- Joined
- Dec 28, 2011
- Messages
- 6,905
- Reaction score
- 233
No one. Because there's a good argument that gun control works (to some extent.)
Also too:
Oh and some more information regarding some common arguments about gun control:
1. If only people were armed, we wouldn't have had all of these problems.
Bullshit. In fact, just the opposite seems to be true.
And in fact, gun ownership rates in the US are declining (from a very high point relative to other industrialized countries):
Even as death rates by firearm also decline (an intuitive fact if you are not some NRA hack or rube).
So in essence, there is a huge statistical, moral, political and intellectual onus on the people making this argument to provide even a smidgen of actual empirical evidence. And that's ignoring counter-evidence readily available like the fact that the army estimates (I would mention the Schrader Study, which is comprehensive but in my view fatally flawed) friendly fire rates (among all casualties) of around 10-14%, which means that even assuming that everyone is trained to the same degree that an American soldier is, the sheer presence of more firepower in a given situation would imply at least (under neutral circumstances) a 1-in-10 greater chance of fatal consequences for a bystander.
2. Other countries have lots of guns and not as much violence!
Also bullshit.
I didn't take Professor Rosenbaum's word for it, by the by.
Which does cast a very deep pall on the cultural argument. I've visited Israel. I have Zionist family. As I have mentioned there, the culture of violence across all races exacerbated by religious and resource tensions which we have no parallels in the United States makes this one of the most violence acculturated countries in the world. That is not to say that American culture does not unnecessarily fetishize and glorify violence to some negative impact, but that the onus probandi on those people making that argument (Saul, QD, etc.) has just increased substantially.
It also suggests to me tweaks to my license system, like having different licenses for different gun contexts. Perhaps a Class-1 License would allow one to have firearms at home, when hunting, and when in public spaces, and would have by far the most onerous and demanding process, with recertification every three months. A Class-2 License would allow one to possess firearms at home only. Class-3 for hunting only, with the weapon stored at a certified and regularly inspected depot of the firearm owner's choice. Or a combination/variation of the schemata suggested.
After all, states with tighter gun control laws are statistically speaking, less prone to gun deaths.
3. Okay, but that's not going to stop mass murderers in any meaningful way:
4. Blanket bans are dumb (sometimes)
I would still hold to that, and this is one of my areas of agreement (more or less) with the gun crowd, but with some caveats: not all bans are dumb, and while these bans do imput some burdens on guns which were not intended to be covered under the spirit of the regulations passed, it strikes me as a necessary and perhaps even virtuous trade-off, particularly when the evidence suggests that the assault weapons ban, to give one example was rather effective.
Stray observations:
Of the twenty deadliest spree shootings in the world, eleven have taken place in the United States, suggesting a twelve-fold disparity between what our share of the world population should suggest about our rate of spree shootings, and what has actually transpired.
Further recommendations:
Tax and legal incentives to keep guns out of the home/not on a person's body. No legitimate way (nor would I support any) to outright ban gun-carrying in the foreseeable future, but gun depots are a sensible and statistically proven way to reduce gun deaths, particularly (and which is now sadly more salient than ever) regarding children who die by the thousands due to gun violence, witting or unwitting.
A better handle on security/gun-free zones for impoverished areas and at-risk public places. As I noted, the poor, especially the minority poor are at danger of quotidian gun violence a fortiori. Better education programs, as well as better educational opportunities (now is the time for national jobs training programs, more robust small business loans, an infrastructure bank/sustained infrastructure investment, and free education and health care) would chip away at these factors (one of the sources I mentioned found one of the highest correlations of all, which are inductively full of implicature, between poverty and gun/sundry forms of violence.)
For schools, better layout and design. Better designed classrooms with thicker doors and some sort of impromptu panic room layout, like a closet in which the children inter alia could hide (the heartbreaking anecdotal evidence from the Newton incident suggests that factors like this were marginally decisive.)
And smaller class sizes. Surprise, surprise, but the teacher union thugs have a good point here. Whereas it is impossible to conclusively proscribe lunacy like this from ever occurring, it is self-evidently a good idea to reduce classroom (and therefore target) densities for gunmen. Not only is this good safety policy, but it is also good education policy as well.
1. If only people were armed, we wouldn't have had all of these problems.
Bullshit. In fact, just the opposite seems to be true.
And in fact, gun ownership rates in the US are declining (from a very high point relative to other industrialized countries):
Even as death rates by firearm also decline (an intuitive fact if you are not some NRA hack or rube).
So in essence, there is a huge statistical, moral, political and intellectual onus on the people making this argument to provide even a smidgen of actual empirical evidence. And that's ignoring counter-evidence readily available like the fact that the army estimates (I would mention the Schrader Study, which is comprehensive but in my view fatally flawed) friendly fire rates (among all casualties) of around 10-14%, which means that even assuming that everyone is trained to the same degree that an American soldier is, the sheer presence of more firepower in a given situation would imply at least (under neutral circumstances) a 1-in-10 greater chance of fatal consequences for a bystander.
2. Other countries have lots of guns and not as much violence!
Also bullshit.
I didn't take Professor Rosenbaum's word for it, by the by.
Which does cast a very deep pall on the cultural argument. I've visited Israel. I have Zionist family. As I have mentioned there, the culture of violence across all races exacerbated by religious and resource tensions which we have no parallels in the United States makes this one of the most violence acculturated countries in the world. That is not to say that American culture does not unnecessarily fetishize and glorify violence to some negative impact, but that the onus probandi on those people making that argument (Saul, QD, etc.) has just increased substantially.
It also suggests to me tweaks to my license system, like having different licenses for different gun contexts. Perhaps a Class-1 License would allow one to have firearms at home, when hunting, and when in public spaces, and would have by far the most onerous and demanding process, with recertification every three months. A Class-2 License would allow one to possess firearms at home only. Class-3 for hunting only, with the weapon stored at a certified and regularly inspected depot of the firearm owner's choice. Or a combination/variation of the schemata suggested.
After all, states with tighter gun control laws are statistically speaking, less prone to gun deaths.
3. Okay, but that's not going to stop mass murderers in any meaningful way:
4. Blanket bans are dumb (sometimes)
I would still hold to that, and this is one of my areas of agreement (more or less) with the gun crowd, but with some caveats: not all bans are dumb, and while these bans do imput some burdens on guns which were not intended to be covered under the spirit of the regulations passed, it strikes me as a necessary and perhaps even virtuous trade-off, particularly when the evidence suggests that the assault weapons ban, to give one example was rather effective.
Stray observations:
Of the twenty deadliest spree shootings in the world, eleven have taken place in the United States, suggesting a twelve-fold disparity between what our share of the world population should suggest about our rate of spree shootings, and what has actually transpired.
Further recommendations:
Tax and legal incentives to keep guns out of the home/not on a person's body. No legitimate way (nor would I support any) to outright ban gun-carrying in the foreseeable future, but gun depots are a sensible and statistically proven way to reduce gun deaths, particularly (and which is now sadly more salient than ever) regarding children who die by the thousands due to gun violence, witting or unwitting.
A better handle on security/gun-free zones for impoverished areas and at-risk public places. As I noted, the poor, especially the minority poor are at danger of quotidian gun violence a fortiori. Better education programs, as well as better educational opportunities (now is the time for national jobs training programs, more robust small business loans, an infrastructure bank/sustained infrastructure investment, and free education and health care) would chip away at these factors (one of the sources I mentioned found one of the highest correlations of all, which are inductively full of implicature, between poverty and gun/sundry forms of violence.)
For schools, better layout and design. Better designed classrooms with thicker doors and some sort of impromptu panic room layout, like a closet in which the children inter alia could hide (the heartbreaking anecdotal evidence from the Newton incident suggests that factors like this were marginally decisive.)
And smaller class sizes. Surprise, surprise, but the teacher union thugs have a good point here. Whereas it is impossible to conclusively proscribe lunacy like this from ever occurring, it is self-evidently a good idea to reduce classroom (and therefore target) densities for gunmen. Not only is this good safety policy, but it is also good education policy as well.
I tire of saying this because ultimately I'm not even particularly invested in the gun control position --if you've read my writing on this (and boy is it voluminous) you'll see I come down on the side of moderate (if any) restrictions, better control, training, etc. and that my sympathies lie towards considerable collective rights of gun ownership.
But when people (on this very thread no less) mulishly insist on referring to fantasies about The Gunfight at the OK Corral as if that were an actual argument for having weapons whose only purpose is propelling superheated metal at other living things it tends to rankle at my sensibilities as a gun owner, a father, and as a human being.
It's not going to change anything, I know, because the country we live in (well, we Americans anyhow) is pretty twisted and crazy so even this ghoulish refusal (writ --and yelled, slandered, lobbied, etc. ad nauseam-- in a stage much larger than a fanfiction forum) to actually engage in an argument won't discredit the side most unyielding. It won't change our laws. It won't bend those minds hardened in the shadow of fear, greed, or ideology. It certainly won't renew any non-existent covenant we've made with each other to try and be a little bit more decent.
But can't you at least try?
Last edited by a moderator:
