Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-04-2019, 04:51 AM
DragonAsh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,481

So what will it take for there to be serious gun control debate?


I thought Sandy Hook would start serious gun control debate in the US.
I mean - dozens of 6- and 7-year old kids! Surely that was the wake-up call?

I was wrong.

Then I thought the Orlando nightclub shooting would start serious debate.
49 people dead, 50+ injured - surely that had to put things over the edge?

I guess not.

And then I thought surely, Las Vegas, with 58 people dead and -hundreds- injured.
This has to be the mass shooting that finally gets people to wake up to the fact that 'thoughts and prayers' won't actually change anything.

Wrong again.

Now we've had two mass shootings within the same day. We're barely making sense of 20 dead in El Paso, and now we have dozens killed or injured in Ohio.

What's the over/under on how many Republicans will insist that 'now is not the time to politicize' the deaths with talk of gun control?

What will it take for there to be meaningful (i.e., Republicans actually on board) gun control debate in this country? Or are we stuck for another couple of decades waiting for the current old guard to die out?
__________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think hiring a pro to do the job is expensive, wait until you hire an amateur...
  #2  
Old 08-04-2019, 05:08 AM
Grrr!'s Avatar
Grrr! is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 16,337
Not gonna happen ever. (because people suck)
  #3  
Old 08-04-2019, 05:10 AM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonAsh View Post
Or are we stuck for another couple of decades waiting for the current old guard to die out?
Waiting for the old guard to die out never ever works because the new guard are taught by the old guard.
  #4  
Old 08-04-2019, 07:04 AM
Caldris bal Comar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 43
In my opinion, if Sandy Hook didn't lead to meaningful reform, there is nothing in the world that will. The only question is how much political capital will be lit on fire by Democratic politicians calling for wide ranging gun restrictions.
  #5  
Old 08-04-2019, 07:16 AM
BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,491
This is a comedic look at what could change the nation's attitude towards gun control. But there's some accuracy here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJqfNroFp8U&t=2s
  #6  
Old 08-04-2019, 07:25 AM
DragonAsh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,481
I suspect having a bunch of black people walk around proclaiming and displaying their 'right to carry' would have a pretty rapid reaction...after, of course, several dozen POC being shot for demonstrating said right.
__________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think hiring a pro to do the job is expensive, wait until you hire an amateur...
  #7  
Old 08-04-2019, 07:28 AM
kitap is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 69
I would guess it would have to be something so awful that Congress couldn't be all " So, guns! Second Amendment! Now is not the time to talk gun control!" without getting beat up by the public. Like someone shooting thousands at the Superbowl or Disney World.
  #8  
Old 08-04-2019, 07:40 AM
Ludovic is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
Waiting for the old guard to die out never ever works because the new guard are taught by the old guard.
It's happening with marijuana.
  #9  
Old 08-04-2019, 07:43 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,976
We're not supposed to talk about gun control or politics in general in the immediate aftermath of shootings. With the pace picking up, there will always be another shooting in the immediate aftermath of the last one, meaning that there will never be an appropriate time to talk about gun control and politics.

Relatively small gun control policies (i.e. background checks for all) would only have a negligible effect on mass shootings, IMO. Larger gun control measures (i.e. banning semi-automatics, tracking all guns and purchases, etc.) are political infeasible. Maybe there's a sweet spot of policies that could reduce body counts -- like banning large magazines -- but who knows. I don't foresee any significant change in mass shootings without a sea change in American culture and society.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 08-04-2019 at 07:43 AM.
  #10  
Old 08-04-2019, 08:02 AM
Ruken is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,461
OP lists several well-publisized mass shootings. As I and everyone else here is at neglible risk of harm from such an event, it just doesn't make it very high on a list of topics that warrant serious debate on policy changes.
  #11  
Old 08-04-2019, 08:13 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 81,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep View Post
This is a comedic look at what could change the nation's attitude towards gun control. But there's some accuracy here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJqfNroFp8U&t=2s
Gun manufacturers would love this scenario. Because they know fear drives gun sales.

If black militants were buying guns, the average white gun-owner response wouldn't be "We need gun control." It would be "I need to buy more guns."
  #12  
Old 08-04-2019, 08:18 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 32,325

So what will it take for there to be serious gun control debate?


Maybe if all the thinkers/prayers become too exhausted to offer anymore thoughts and prayers? Imagine how horrific things could get without thoughts and prayers!
  #13  
Old 08-04-2019, 08:21 AM
DragonAsh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,481
The risk of dying from a mass shooting is minimal - but that wasn't the point.

Tens of thousands of people die from firearms in the US, compared with minimal firearm deaths in just about every other developed nation on earth. I'm sure I don't need to give the whole rhyme 'n verse here.

Dozens of people being shot and killed every day, one or two at a time, all across the country? Nobody cares. Most of the time it only makes the local newspaper.

The only hope we have of change is that some event becomes a catalyst. Sexual assault and harassment has been a problem for women for decades, but it took the allegations against Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby to start the MeToo movement.

One would have hoped that of all the many tragic events in recent years, one of them would have sparked something - Australia had Port Arthur. But as noted - if Sandy Hook didn't result in any meaningful change in the US, probably nothing will.
__________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think hiring a pro to do the job is expensive, wait until you hire an amateur...
  #14  
Old 08-04-2019, 08:24 AM
DragonAsh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,481
BTW - if I'm ever shot and killed - you all have my permission to politicize the sh*t out of my death.
__________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think hiring a pro to do the job is expensive, wait until you hire an amateur...
  #15  
Old 08-04-2019, 08:27 AM
not what you'd expect is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,834
We need to peacefully take to the streets. All of us.

We have to bring the country to a standstill. This sounds extreme, but I think it's the only thing that will work.
  #16  
Old 08-04-2019, 08:37 AM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonAsh View Post
...

What will it take for there to be meaningful (i.e., Republicans actually on board) gun control debate in this country? Or are we stuck for another couple of decades waiting for the current old guard to die out?
That's not a debate. That's a group think echo chamber. We debate gun control here all the time and it always boils down to one side wanting a ban and/or to regulate guns out of existence vs. the other side who want neither.

It took generations to get is to the point that a very few people now think it's ok to shoot up a shopping mall. To think that a stroke of a pen will somehow change that is wishful thinking at best.
  #17  
Old 08-04-2019, 08:42 AM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
It's happening with marijuana.
Nothing is being taken away nor are constitutional rights really at play in that debate. Apples and oranges in my opinion.
  #18  
Old 08-04-2019, 08:44 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonAsh View Post
The risk of dying from a mass shooting is minimal - but that wasn't the point.

Tens of thousands of people die from firearms in the US, compared with minimal firearm deaths in just about every other developed nation on earth. I'm sure I don't need to give the whole rhyme 'n verse here.

Dozens of people being shot and killed every day, one or two at a time, all across the country? Nobody cares. Most of the time it only makes the local newspaper.

The only hope we have of change is that some event becomes a catalyst. Sexual assault and harassment has been a problem for women for decades, but it took the allegations against Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby to start the MeToo movement.

One would have hoped that of all the many tragic events in recent years, one of them would have sparked something - Australia had Port Arthur. But as noted - if Sandy Hook didn't result in any meaningful change in the US, probably nothing will.
I doubt there will ever be such a catalyst in the US. A majority of Americans already want gun control, so that's not really the problem. Rather, the problem is that there isn't enough of the right kind of political power being exerted in the right direction, and that is because we have effectively a minority government in power. Republicans are a minority government; they have received fewer votes and Democrats, and yet they still have more power.

I think the Democrats/progressives need better outreach campaigns in these areas and need to connect the interests of people in rural America with those in the cities. It sounds crazy, but it may not be that far-fetched when you consider that Kansas - yes, freaking Kansas - was once considered a progressive hotbed. During the 1930s, FDR was successful at tying together economic issues and concerns of farmers and rural Americans with those who lived in cities. I admit that I sometimes throw shade at people like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, but I'll give them credit for visiting rural America and not just staying safe in cities and suburbs.

To address the issue of guns specifically, progressives need to get face time in these rural areas through town halls and other formats. Republicans and the NRA have not necessarily been successful in persuading the majority of Americans that gun control is a bad idea; rather, they've been successful at persuading just enough Americans in these white, conservative, Christian communities to vote against "liberal elites" in diverse cities. The Republicans and the NRA are in a position where they're using rural (white and Christian) nationalism to defend their version of America. Take enough of that support away, and you'll see a meaningful shift toward more common sense gun control legislation.
  #19  
Old 08-04-2019, 08:46 AM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonAsh View Post
I suspect having a bunch of black people walk around proclaiming and displaying their 'right to carry' would have a pretty rapid reaction...after, of course, several dozen POC being shot for demonstrating said right.
This is, historically, what has led to gun control. Not just the famous Reagan example, but more generally when politicians imagine the assailants to be Black then they will legislate.

As you say, though, in this climate such a thing is just as likely to spiral into widespread violence as to lead to meaningful policy change. So the answer to the OP is probably: civil war or something similar.
  #20  
Old 08-04-2019, 09:01 AM
Ruken is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonAsh View Post
The risk of dying from a mass shooting is minimal - but that wasn't the point.
Yet it was precisely how you framed your OP. Instead of framing a policy discussion around rational risk assessment, you went straight for the sensational.

But in the sense of larger "gun violence", what will it take? My guess is it will take convincing people they and their immediate spheres are at non-negligible risk even if they are not suicidal, are not in a relationship with an abuser, are not involved in criminal activity, and are not associating with people who are. And that some other policy isn't a better solution.

Personally it's little skin off my back if you just ban them. But do-somethingism makes for poor policy
  #21  
Old 08-04-2019, 09:10 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonAsh View Post

What will it take for there to be meaningful (i.e., Republicans actually on board) gun control debate in this country? Or are we stuck for another couple of decades waiting for the current old guard to die out?
When you say debate, do you mean something else besides debate? Because there seems to be plenty of debate.

The merits of any given argument shouldn't hinge on a given current event. That's the rationale behind not wanting to politicize a tragedy. But hey, never let a tragedy go to waste, I guess.
  #22  
Old 08-04-2019, 09:15 AM
Translucent Daydream is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Grand Valley
Posts: 1,752
Who pays the bills for the people that get shot? I don’t have health insurance and I wonder what would happen if I got shot in one of these things.

See if I get hit by a car, the other driver’s insurance will pay, or if they don’t have it, my uninsured motorist rider will.

Who pays when little Timmy steals Dad’s gun or something and shoots me?

Honest question. I don’t know how that works.
__________________
I promise it’s not as bad or as good as you think it is.
  #23  
Old 08-04-2019, 09:16 AM
elbows is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 14,398
Even if sweeping legislation was passed tomorrow it’s still very much, “closing the door after the horse has bolted!”, in my opinion. There are millions of legal, private arsenals in your country. After each shooting the nutjobs flood the gun stores, to buy the assault weapon used, out of fear they will soon be removed from the market! Now add in all the illegal weapons in play, and good lord, it could take decades before you begin to see any effect, I should think.

Maybe start making strident education requirements, etc. You have to take x courses to get a rifle, and then escalate to hand guns and assault rifles, requiring several expensive courses over several years, and accuracy shooting updates like cops have, for the worst class of weapons? Or maybe just tax the shit out of them. An expensive permit for each weapon, old or new, the nastier the more costly, renewed every year. Children in the home? Means extensive/expensive insurance required. And, of course, a HUGE fine for any unaccounted weapon, plus loss of all weapons and permits if one of your guns is used in the commission of a crime?

Maybe instead of buy back only, offer every ghetto kid a years college tuition for each gun they bring in! (Now imagine kids thirsting for an education, start robbing muggers and taking down gangs for the tuition, ha ha ha!)

Unfortunately good governance is about making the right decision at the right time. Trying to undo things seems ever so much more difficult to me.
  #24  
Old 08-04-2019, 09:24 AM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 27,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Gun manufacturers would love this scenario. Because they know fear drives gun sales.

If black militants were buying guns, the average white gun-owner response wouldn't be "We need gun control." It would be "I need to buy more guns."
I'm afraid you're right about this.

Much of the opposition to gun control, it seems to me, stems from fear. If you take my guns away, you take my power away. And anything that makes me more fearful, makes me clutch my guns more tightly.


(That's a rhetorical "me," in case you can't tell. I, personally, don't have any guns.)
  #25  
Old 08-04-2019, 09:37 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
When you say debate, do you mean something else besides debate? Because there seems to be plenty of debate.



The merits of any given argument shouldn't hinge on a given current event. That's the rationale behind not wanting to politicize a tragedy. But hey, never let a tragedy go to waste, I guess.
Post 9/11 foreign policy was almost entirely driven, at least for several years, by that event. It was mostly bad policy, thus supporting your caution to argue on the merits rather than on immediate events.

But if you're asking or expecting gun control advocates to ignore ongoing mass shootings, then ISTM that you're asking them to be superhuman. That's just how humans work.

What do you think can reduce these types of mass shootings?
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #26  
Old 08-04-2019, 09:40 AM
jasg is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Upper left hand corner
Posts: 6,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonAsh View Post
I suspect having a bunch of black people walk around proclaiming and displaying their 'right to carry' would have a pretty rapid reaction...after, of course, several dozen POC being shot for demonstrating said right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
This is, historically, what has led to gun control. Not just the famous Reagan example, but more generally when politicians imagine the assailants to be Black then they will legislate.

As you say, though, in this climate such a thing is just as likely to spiral into widespread violence as to lead to meaningful policy change. So the answer to the OP is probably: civil war or something similar.
If I remember my history, when the Black Panthers showed up armed on the capitol steps in Sacramento, gun control became a reality in California with the Mulford Act.

However, the backlash to those laws triggered a backlash that brought us the politicized NRA, the gun lobby and the modern gun rights movement.

Quote:
The Ku Klux Klan, Ronald Reagan, and, for most of its history, the NRA all worked to control guns. The Founding Fathers? They required gun ownership—and regulated it. And no group has more fiercely advocated the right to bear loaded weapons in public than the Black Panthers—the true pioneers of the modern pro-gun movement. In the battle over gun rights in America, both sides have distorted history and the law, and there’s no resolution in sight.
  #27  
Old 08-04-2019, 09:46 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,601
The so-called serious debate has been and is ongoing. The complaint is that the outcome desired by one side has not yet been realized.
  #28  
Old 08-04-2019, 09:51 AM
BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
When you say debate, do you mean something else besides debate? Because there seems to be plenty of debate.

The merits of any given argument shouldn't hinge on a given current event. That's the rationale behind not wanting to politicize a tragedy. But hey, never let a tragedy go to waste, I guess.
A tragedy is not being politicized. A seemingly never ending stream of tragedies, for which nothing is being done, is being politicized. Big difference.
  #29  
Old 08-04-2019, 09:52 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
The merits of any given argument shouldn't hinge on a given current event. That's the rationale behind not wanting to politicize a tragedy. But hey, never let a tragedy go to waste, I guess.
Sometimes that's true, but not always. It depends on the magnitude of the tragedy and how it's perceived. After the Dunblane mass shooting in Scotland in 1996, the UK passed a Firearms Amendment Act in direct response, significantly tightening already strict gun regulation. After the Port Arthur massacre, Australia passed sweeping new gun legislation and a gun buyback program. After the mosque shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand, the parliament there passed strong new gun legislation literally within weeks.

Yet in the only country in the world where mass shootings occur with stunning frequency, they have not even moved the needle on gun control. Shockingly, not a thing was done after Sandy Hook. How many mass shootings have there been since then? (According to this, there have been 2,189.) There have been three in just the last week, and two in the past 24 hours. Surely a consideration of this unique frequency of mass shootings that occur over and over and over again, and seem to happen almost exclusively in the US, goes far beyond merely "politicizing" some one particular current event?
  #30  
Old 08-04-2019, 09:54 AM
Kimera757 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 550
What would it take?

A Democratic majority in the Supreme Court, a Democratic supermajority in the Senate, and a Democratic Congress. A Democratic president would be nice, but not required, as presidents don't pass legislation. (A supermajority would not only stop a veto, but override filibusters.)

And even these might not be enough. Some of those Democratic Senate seats would be in "pro gun" states and those senators would not vote in favor of gun control.
  #31  
Old 08-04-2019, 10:01 AM
rsat3acr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by not what you'd expect View Post
We need to peacefully take to the streets. All of us.

We have to bring the country to a standstill. This sounds extreme, but I think it's the only thing that will work.
I think Gandhi(a victim of gun violence) would have approved.
  #32  
Old 08-04-2019, 10:07 AM
Jimmy Chitwood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Near Philadelphia
Posts: 6,535
Imagine using the "never let a tragedy go to waste" criticism in the context of any tragedy that wasn't a white American shooting a bunch of people.

Tornado kills thousands? Dam breaks? Massive earthquakes and fires? Outbreak of disease? Ship sinks? These are times for reflection, let's not be hasty and pass any new laws or anything.

The only reason it's any different is that there's implicitly another "side" to the anti-gun-massacre movement.
  #33  
Old 08-04-2019, 10:24 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
The so-called serious debate has been and is ongoing. The complaint is that the outcome desired by one side has not yet been realized.
And the outcome desired from the other side that has been realized-are you happen with it?
  #34  
Old 08-04-2019, 10:29 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
When you say debate, do you mean something else besides debate? Because there seems to be plenty of debate.

The merits of any given argument shouldn't hinge on a given current event. That's the rationale behind not wanting to politicize a tragedy. But hey, never let a tragedy go to waste, I guess.
Too soon? I'm sorry, but the double disaster from yesterday points out that "too soon" just doesn't apply anymore when the heat from the gun barrels far outweigh the heat of the argument.

Last edited by Czarcasm; 08-04-2019 at 10:29 AM.
  #35  
Old 08-04-2019, 10:36 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 26,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonAsh View Post
What will it take for there to be meaningful (i.e., Republicans actually on board) gun control debate in this country? Or are we stuck for another couple of decades waiting for the current old guard to die out?
It does occur to me that, yes, we could have a serious gun control debate if there were fewer opponents of gun control.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 08-04-2019 at 10:37 AM.
  #36  
Old 08-04-2019, 10:50 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caldris bal Comar View Post
In my opinion, if Sandy Hook didn't lead to meaningful reform, there is nothing in the world that will. The only question is how much political capital will be lit on fire by Democratic politicians calling for wide ranging gun restrictions.
Democrats aren't going to do this. Oh, they'll come out for background checks or the like. You know, the feel good measures that might save some lives here and there, but not for the kinds of restrictions that address the root of the problem: too many people with too many guns.
  #37  
Old 08-04-2019, 10:59 AM
Ruken is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Chitwood View Post
Tornado kills thousands? Dam breaks? Massive earthquakes and fires? Outbreak of disease? Ship sinks? These are times for reflection, let's not be hasty and pass any new laws or anything.
You are correct. Hasty do-somethingism is not appropriate in those situations.
  #38  
Old 08-04-2019, 11:03 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
You are correct. Hasty do-somethingism is not appropriate in those situations.
If we refer to current disasters it is "too soon", and if we wait until it dies down there are other current events to talk about that are "more important".
I'm sorry, but this hypocritical approach just doesn't fly any more.
  #39  
Old 08-04-2019, 11:11 AM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 27,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Democrats aren't going to do this. Oh, they'll come out for background checks or the like. You know, the feel good measures that might save some lives here and there, but not for the kinds of restrictions that address the root of the problem: too many people with too many guns.
I honestly don't know whether the root of the problem is "too many people with too many guns," or whether it's the wrong kind of people with guns, or whether it's people with the wrong kind of guns.
  #40  
Old 08-04-2019, 11:12 AM
Jimmy Chitwood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Near Philadelphia
Posts: 6,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
You are correct. Hasty do-somethingism is not appropriate in those situations.
It's only appropriate in those situations where an existing gap or oversight in the legislative framework led to the conditions in which those disasters occurred. Which is to say all of them.
  #41  
Old 08-04-2019, 11:13 AM
Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,528
30 million people admit support white supremacist views in this country.

When the idea of taking murderous vengeance on everyone who doesn't look and talk like you dies, then we'll have gun control. Until then, look forward to mass murders every week.

Last edited by Ulfreida; 08-04-2019 at 11:17 AM.
  #42  
Old 08-04-2019, 11:18 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
You are correct. Hasty do-somethingism is not appropriate in those situations.
I don't know if that's supposed to be some kind of weird sarcasm, but it's been nearly seven years and 2,189 mass shootings since Sandy Hook. And Sandy Hook was hardly the first mass shooting, just one of the most shocking in a deadly series that's been ongoing for decades, not to mention the rate of US gun homicides in general that's been off the charts compared to any other advanced democracy for about as long as records have been kept. At what point will decisive action on gun control no longer be considered "hasty"?
  #43  
Old 08-04-2019, 11:21 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 26,854
Quote:
Beto O’Rourke, a Democratic presidential candidate and an El Paso native, held a news conference on a street corner opposite the hospital as the sun set, recounting his visit with wounded victims, including a woman who had a bullet pass through her lungs.

“I told them that I am so amazed at how strong they are,” the former U.S. congressman said.
#VegasStrong

#StrongElPaso

#DaytonStrong

#HoustonStrong

#GilroyStrong

#ParklandStrong

etc.

etc.

I don't want to be this strong anymore. What good is it doing?
  #44  
Old 08-04-2019, 11:23 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 81,373
Any serious discussion on gun control has to start with a giant leap; the repeal of the Second Amendment.

As long as the Second Amendment exists, it means gun advocates do not have to debate gun control; they've already won the argument. They don't have to discuss what a reasonable amount of gun control is because they can have zero gun control.
  #45  
Old 08-04-2019, 11:28 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Democrats aren't going to do this. Oh, they'll come out for background checks or the like. You know, the feel good measures that might save some lives here and there, but not for the kinds of restrictions that address the root of the problem: too many people with too many guns.
As an example, Kamala Harris just now on CNN came out for
  • Background Checks
  • Resources for ATF to better find gun dealers who aren't licensed or in violation in some way
  • Ban import of assault weapons (I wish she would have defined what an assault weapon is, but she did not).

So at least in her case, I stand corrected, but only partially. She is on the right track with just one of these items.
  #46  
Old 08-04-2019, 11:28 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 81,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
You are correct. Hasty do-somethingism is not appropriate in those situations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
I don't know if that's supposed to be some kind of weird sarcasm, but it's been nearly seven years and 2,189 mass shootings since Sandy Hook. And Sandy Hook was hardly the first mass shooting, just one of the most shocking in a deadly series that's been ongoing for decades, not to mention the rate of US gun homicides in general that's been off the charts compared to any other advanced democracy for about as long as records have been kept. At what point will decisive action on gun control no longer be considered "hasty"?
That's the point. The argument isn't really against taking hasty action. It's against taking any action. Gun advocates always say "We shouldn't talk about gun control right now" in the aftermath of a major gun crime.
  #47  
Old 08-04-2019, 11:34 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
I honestly don't know whether the root of the problem is "too many people with too many guns," or whether it's the wrong kind of people with guns, or whether it's people with the wrong kind of guns.
How about "all of the above"?

As for the white supremacy thing, that's only one factor. The main commonality in gun violence is whatever factor can make a person -- perhaps even an ordinarily fairly well-balanced person -- irrationally angry -- which can be a great many things besides racist hate. Combine that with trivially easy access to guns, and you have a deadly combination. The real problem, as I said in the Pit thread, is the perspective that if you, personally, own a gun, and you see it (wrongly, as it turns out) as a source of personal protection -- and of course, would never do anything bad with it -- then what could possibly be the problem? The perspective that this also means that everybody and his dog has exactly the same right -- and that the consequence is rampant gun proliferation and the gun violence we see in America today -- seems completely lost on the proponents of that uniquely American concept of the primacy of individualism over a collective sense of social responsibility.

An old article in the New Yorker -- one which predated Sandy Hook and other recent horrific mass shootings -- once described the Second Amendment as the biggest single mistake the Founders ever made. I reiterate my previous sentiment that nothing is going to be done without a culture change so significant that it reflects the realization that the Second Amendment -- and particularly the "individual rights" interpretation of it in the Heller ruling -- has become the biggest threat to public safety in the history of modern America. Until this fact is well and truly understood, the future will continue to be a spinning of wheels under the delusional attitude of "let's see what can be done without actually doing anything".
  #48  
Old 08-04-2019, 11:34 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
I honestly don't know whether the root of the problem is "too many people with too many guns," or whether it's the wrong kind of people with guns...
Fair enough. Yet, we cannot know ahead of time who is the right kind. I would argue that most people who commit mass murder, or just murder in general, was at some time the right kind. We aren't born felons, for example. So what to do?
  #49  
Old 08-04-2019, 11:35 AM
Ruken is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
If we refer to current disasters it is "too soon", and if we wait until it dies down there are other current events to talk about that are "more important".
I'm sorry, but this hypocritical approach just doesn't fly any more.
There are certainly more important policy measures to talk about, based on rational risk assessment. Do-somethingism gets my pocket knife banned from planes and CPS taking kids away because they walked to the playground alone. As the OP admitted, mass shootings pose minimal risk. Thus they factor minimally into any rational discussion about gun control. I don't really care much about "too soon" and have AFAIK never made that argument, if you can call it one. But yes, there are more important things to talk about.
  #50  
Old 08-04-2019, 11:41 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
As the OP admitted, mass shootings pose minimal risk. Thus they factor minimally into any rational discussion about gun control.
Yes, the vast percentage of people who are killed by guns do not involve mass shootings. To my mind though, they should be factored in to the degree that they might encourage discussion about what we actually can do to reduce that huge number. Because the every day, run-of-the-mill murders that happen, say in a burglary or domestic violence incident, don't show up on the radar like mass shootings do. IOW, they don't spark discussion and debate. So I reject the idea of "a tragedy gone to waste" being a legitimate argument. Use those tragedies however you can to effect change.

ETA: I realize you didn't personally bring up wasted tragedies... I just wanted to make that point.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 08-04-2019 at 11:44 AM.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017