Poe’s Law in action.
Relic of a vulture? Is that anything like a writhing desk?
I don’t think anyone claims they’re isolated or beyond explanation. I think people think we shouldn’t set national policy that affects hundreds of millions of people based around maybe a dozen deaths per year on average.
If the media decided to sensationalize things that were far more dangerous, you’d suddenly be driven to care about that too. If the media made a big news day out of every time a little kid drowned in their own pool, you’d be here screaming that we must ban outdoor pools because they’re just killing kids left and right!
But because it isn’t presented to you as a narrative that gets you to react emotionally, it’s not even on your radar.
Good policy is made from a rational analysis in total of a situation, not emotional reactions to narratives.
We could have ten times as many spree shootings as we do (and I’m sort of amazed that we don’t) and they would still be barely a blip on causes of unnatural deaths.
So yeah, here I am suggesting it: your gut reaction to something you hate anyway is not a sound basis on which to form public policy.
Yes. Thank you. This is what I said after the movie theater shooting, and I still think so now.
Ah, I see. A few shooting massacres per year is just the price we all have to pay in order to allow firearms enthusiasts to indulge their hobby.
Well, I don’t think the hobby is that important. And, purely statistically, the excess risks of firearm deaths outweigh the social benefit of allowing people to pursue this hobby. And I think we very much should base our national policy affecting hundreds of millions of people based on real-life effects, rather than humoring fevered ideologies about being ready to take up arms if Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama get too uppity or national myths about rugged individualism.
In short, I’ll fight you on your turf: Explain to me how the social benefit of expansive access to firearms outweighs the social costs of that policy. That is the only way to approach the question in the unemotional terms you purport to desire.
So, your move…
What’s the cost of 12 deaths a year versus all the wealth created directly from the firearms hobby? What about all the people it gets out of the house? All the people it gets to socialize more? I think the social benefits massively outweigh the costs of 12 deaths a year.
I base that on other hobbies, like recreational swimming, running, street luge and various others that kill people every year and yet are seen as perfectly acceptable, suggesting to me the gun hobby isn’t causing any disproportionate amount of deaths.
Of course we could argue for a thousand pages about what the social benefits even are, and what the social costs are. You probably want to ascribe every gun death as a cost, I’d argue that’s ludicrous. But that’s irrelevant and is why this “social cost/benefit analysis” is pointless. The cost and benefits are entirely subjective and depend on where you draw the lines.
Instead let’s just say this, the number of people killed in mass shootings per capita is very low, too low to be the reason we set policy when that policy will take privileges away from people who currently enjoy them. Government should have to demonstrate a compelling interest to take things away, to me 12 deaths a year isn’t compelling enough.
Actually, the real price we pay is the general background of shootings that kills far more people.
Also at the end of the day it is an inappropriate way to run the country to simply say “we should ban this unless you can justify it from a societal cost benefit analysis.” The onus should be on people wanting to ban stuff to show compelling reasons for the ban, and you’ve certainly not even tried to do that, you just insist people justify something they can already legally do.
Yes, because gun laws would magically remove the 500m guns already in America, just like they keep Mexico from suffering gun violence.
Yeah, look at all the lovely people James Holmes got to meet.
Well, if history is any guide, my move should be to buy stock in companies that make guns and ammo.
I just changed the channel to CNN…
Lallapalooza is coming to Isreal!
Let’s nip this one in the bud. Twelve deaths per year came straight from SenorBeef’s ass. In the last three months, 21 people have been killed in shooting sprees, with an additional 65 injured. (Western Psych, Pittsburgh, mid-May 2012, 2 killed, 7 injured; Aurora, July 2012, 12 killed, 58 injured; Milwaukee, today, 7 killed, unknown injured.)
These are just three that I’ve checked. I also know that there was a workplace shooting in the South Suburbs of Chicago this summer. And there are likely more. Western Psych barely registered on the national radar.
It is undoubtedly easier to make the case by minimizing, on no other basis than that it comports with one’s ideology, the actual effects of this policy. But it is not true and represents just as much “gut reaction” sophistry as you accuse those who are properly horrified by these incidents of indulging.
No doubt it’s deplorable moral laxity, but I would pay good cash money to see the Luge Slayer in action.
So you want to quibble over numbers instead of actually addressing my point? How do you even define “mass shooting?” Because the FBI would define mass murder as four or more murders happening around the same time or with no cooling off periods in between. By that metric Western Psych wouldn’t register as one at all.
Look at a few different lists on wikipedia, it looks like the U.S. averages anywhere between 16 and 40 killings a year that would rank. If you go by the FBI definition of mass murder being 4 or more people then it’s on the lower end, around 16 per year average.
Either way it’s well under 1 per 100,000 deaths attributable, which means it’s less of a concern than things like swimming pools and ladders.
But again, I think if you want to justify banning stuff you need an actual argument to justify banning stuff, not just a stance that “unless you can explain why we shouldn’t ban it, we should.”
You’d need to confiscate or buy as many of those guns as possible of course. And yes, it would help Mexico; the gun violence in Mexico is to a large degree due to the fact that our ocean of guns constantly flows into their country. America is the arsenal of crime for the Americas.
Right, because the question now on the table is this: We want to stop these massacres, and the one thing they seem to have in common is that they were all made possible by an expansive access to guns. So one way to curtail them, which is something we want, would be to curtail access to guns.
Your facile response to the question “Should we curtail access to guns?” is to say “Right now, we allow this expansive access to guns.” Guess what, hot shot! That was something I already knew! And it quite misses the point.
Actually that’s not the case, as I’ve explained on these boards before. Years ago a report came out showing a majority of traceable guns that were confiscated in Mexico came from America. The problem with that is something like half the guns confiscated in Mexico aren’t traceable, and since almost every gun manufactured in America is traceable. So in reality we know that a large number of guns confiscated in Mexico actually aren’t coming from America.
And I’m not talking about “would” help Mexico, I’m talking about current Mexican law, which prohibits most private firearms ownership and has not helped Mexico at all. You’re working from an assumption a magical law here would just instantly get rid of our guns and then get rid of Mexico’s gun problem as well.
That’s just fantasy.
Just so we are clear, in the US there are approximately 15,000 firearm homicides per year, not 12.
This is simply the cost for us to enjoy the ready access to firearms that we desire.