I am sorry, but you don’t seem to grasp why I am rejecting your argument. I will try to lay this out:
This particular solution of gun violence being what I consider incorrect is not the same as the problem of cancer (or the problem of gun violence).
The underlying logic is based on a review of the damage to people innocent of crime (via property forfeiture) because someone else has committed a crime.
-If a *solution *to cancer was proposed that killed every single human being to get rid of all cancer, I would object on similar grounds.
-If a solution to confiscate curb motor vehicle death and destruction was proposed that seized all motor vehicles, I would object on similar grounds.
In my opinion, we should not directly punish those that have not been convicted of any crime.
For clarity’s sake, this is not the same as saying that we should take no action on gun violence (or, to relate to your cancer scenario, to take no action on cancer) but only saying that this particular action shouldn’t be considered, in my opinion.
If you don’t think that I have come across properly, please message me and we can stop derailing this thread with our mutual declarations of misunderstanding.
Actually I think the analogy with cars is a good one. The fatality rate of guns and cars in the US are approximately the same. Because some people can’t handle cars responsibly the rest of us have to suffer. We have to obey speed limits; we have to demonstrate our ability to drive a car safely; We can have our license taken away for a number of different reasons; cars are required to have seatbelts and are prevented from having high beams above a certain luminosity etc. If someone suggests new regulations for cars or driving to make things safer say the addition of airbags or a no driving while on a cell phone, the efficacy of such regulation is debated on its merits, and studies of driver safety are routinely financed by the government. The AAA doesn’t muscle in and use its voting clout to prevent even considering such regulations or studies.
As far as confiscation goes, few gun regulation activists argue of complete confiscation of all guns, mostly they want regulation on what types are allowed, in the same way that we require cars to have certain safety devices. Secondly even you must admit that the usefulness of a car far exceeds the usefulness of a gun in day to day life.
And like cancer treatments, we should focus on the perpetrators (criminal justice) and victims (medical care, rehabilitation, etc) of gun violence, and quit trying to apply a “solution” that affects, probably detrimentally, everyone else.
We wouldn’t mandate everyone in the US endure chemo therapy on the off chance that they end up in the sliver of people who get cancer that year, and we shouldn’t mandate that everyone has to give up their guns / submit to onerous regulation on the off chance that theirs ends up in the sliver that’s involved in gun violence
Actually, the rest of your post is excellent. The line I quote, though, is key to why the whole comparison between the rate of fatalities due to cars and guns is fallacious. Evaluating risk is about exposure, and people are far more exposed to the use of cars than to the use of firearms.
It’s like observing that approximately the same number of people die from anthrax as from ambient radio waves and concluding they are equally risky things. Of course, everyone is exposed to ambient radio waves constantly, whereas very few people are exposed to anthrax.
Actually, the number of fatalities from cars is more than 3 times higher than guns, these days (in the early 90’s it was flipped). And cars have 10.8 million “incidents” a year versus roughly 900,000 (non-fatal) incidents with guns, despite there being 15 million fewer motor vehicles in the US than guns.
As for “complete confiscation” I still don’t see why we should punish people who haven’t committed a crime. We already have a ban on fully automatic weapons. Every semi-automatic is basically the same in terms of unloading bullets power (deadliest and trauma obviously dictated by bullet size).
Changing the magazine on almost all semi-automatics isn’t a terribly difficult affair, so trying to limit owners to magazines that only hold 7 bullets instead of 10 or whatnot doesn’t actually slow down or stop someone dedicated to mayhem.
I think one of the best places we can shore up the gun problem is with background checks. Make mental health a criteria. If any of your psychiatrists or doctors see you as a danger to yourself or others, you need to have the police come and take your guns and get a “Nuh uh” HIPAA-complaint prohibition against buying a gun on your background check.
While these people aren’t criminals, the mentally ill need to be cared for, not left to stew until their dog tells them to murder people in his name. But until we can convince enough people to fund mental health institutions, again, I can abide by mental illness getting you punted off the “free to own” list.
It really depends on what the specific proposed regulation we are talking about is.
Confiscation? I’d say that’s onerous for the other implications of suddenly taking away everyone’s property (4th amendment). I think a lot of people can see that.
Asking for a background check with a mental health clearance included? Not really onerous. Depending on who you go to work for, you got a more invasive pee test than a CBO with a Yes/No mental health clearance.
Agreed on the background check, but why do you keep bringing up confiscation? Given the second amendment, I’d say it would definitely be onerous, but who is calling for that?
I brought it up as an example of an “onerous” reason related to a non-2nd-amendment issue. As in “unreasonable searches and seizures” instead of the right to bear arms. It seemed handy at the time.
Okay, but dropping any second amendment issue or the onerousness of any given regulation, do you believe any serious attempts at mass confiscation of guns are now, or may soon be, in the works?
Before this goes any further, I’m not asking about taking away a certain type of weapon, I’m talking about a concerted effort to de-arm America. I have no doubt there are plenty of people who would like to get rid of so-called assault weapons. I should have been more clear.
Shrug I guess if the only evidence you’ll accept is of total disarmament of all types of weapons in one fell swoop, then no, I doubt there’s a serious effort to do that now. Most people, including those that support such a thing, realize it’s politically unfeasible. They concentrate on the types / colors / accessories of guns they think they can ban now, and intend to expand the list as the option arises.
ETA: But I’d definitely call the plans to take 166,000 firearms from their owners “mass confiscation” every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
The problem is the term “assault weapon”. It is not a “gun type” it is a politically-defined term that is vague.
I can go down the street and buy two guns. Both shotguns. Both firing the same rounds at the same rate of fire. One will be confiscated and one will be left in your home under the proposed “Assault Weapons Ban”. Apparently, having a wood stock on your shotgun makes it less dangerous. (This is true, by the way.)
Defining what makes a gun a good hunting weapon versus a good human killing weapon are usually the same. A weapon that can drop an elk, for instance, drops a human just as quickly (if not quicker). A weapon that can hit a couple of birds in rapid succession (semi-auto, not auto) is just as good for hitting multiple humans in rapid succession.
If we are, as a society, going to define what is “good” versus “bad” in terms of guns instead of who is “good” versus “bad”, we need something that isn’t a political sound bite to legislate against.
California has that. They want to ban “all semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines”. That’s a clear, unambiguous, and draconian standard (which will do very little to reduce the # of gun murders this year, next year, or any year after it’s passed).
Shrug If you want to guess at what evidence I will or will not accept, that is certainly your right. Farin mentioned “complete confiscation” and “taking away everyone’s property.” I merely meant to ask him to clarify what that meant and to ask him if he thought it was happening.
California isn’t talking about banning “assault weapons” now. They’re talking about prohibiting the purchase of all semi-auto rifles with a detachable magazine.
