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.
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”?
#VegasStrong
#StrongElPaso
#DaytonStrong
#HoustonStrong
#GilroyStrong
#ParklandStrong
etc.
etc.
I don’t want to be this strong anymore. What good is it doing?
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.
As an example, Kamala Harris just now on CNN came out for
[ul]
[li]Background Checks[/li][li]Resources for ATF to better find gun dealers who aren’t licensed or in violation in some way[/li][li]Ban import of assault weapons (I wish she would have defined what an assault weapon is, but she did not).[/li][/ul]
So at least in her case, I stand corrected, but only partially. She is on the right track with just one of these items.
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.
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”.
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?
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.
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.
We have not had “zero gun control” or anything even approximating that for many decades now.
So now you’ve gone from “nothing should be done because it’s too hasty” to “nothing should be done because there are more important things to do”? Will there ever be a time when there aren’t important things to do? It’s hard to shake the impression that your real belief is that nothing should ever be done, period. Other countries have managed to effectively deal with gun control while addressing all their other priorities, too, on the principle of being able to walk and chew gum at the same time. The real problem in the US is that the gun lobby has made gun control politically toxic.
I guess I can buy that. If I were to add to that, “… that actually does anything to bring down the unconscionable number of murders and suicides”, I would most definitely buy it.
Even with all the recent mass murders there have been moves to weaken gun control. For example concealed carry is now easier in many places.
Thank god somebody has the courage to jump into this debate to offer a lucid and reasonable counterpoint to all this knee jerk nonsense. I don’t know what we would do without such an insightful argument on the subject. This is clearly not a problem of “zero gun control”. Whatever the issue is with respect to all these shootings has nothing to do with anything related to gun control or any alleged benefit such a policy might yield. I don’t know how many of these shootings it will take for all you gun grabbers to finally realize this salient point. Thank you, HD, for your thoughtful and always much needed perspective on the subject.
I haven’t gone “from” anywhere. Hasty do-something policy decisions can be made decades later, see recently when TSA reversed its decision to finally re-allow pocket knives on planes. That decision was not the result of rational risk assessment, but instead on irrational fear of sensational events. Thus, hasty do-somethingism.
Debate is and has been ongoing.
People mention ‘common sense gun control’. What do you think is a gun control measure that should be passed?
My complaint is that assholes are killing people.
Which one? If you say #3 please be sure to list what AWs are being imported into the US. Most were banned from import in 1989 under Bush. Ms Harris is as clueless as many regarding existing law, regardless of her experience as DA.
It’s hard to take this seriously since it’s mischaracterized pretty badly. After Port Arthur, Australia didn’t simply pass sweeping gun legislation and have a buyback program - they banned guns. I believe this is what you would actually want, but soft pedaling like this is just something to throw away then.
And then there’s the vox article which sources it’s info from the gun violence archive. I’m sure there are people that take that inflated figure seriously, but as far as I’m concerned it’s absurd to use their characterization. Most gun related incidents are suicide, then next is garden variety crime. Using the specter of mass shootings which include incidents that seem a lot like gang violence is less than persuasive - it makes people question everything else you’re saying. Mass shootings as they are normally understood, are still thankfully rare, and are a fraction of gun related incidents.
If events are to be politicized, it at least makes sense to propose measures that would have thwarted the incident where the blood dance is being performed. Like when universal background checks were being proposed after Sandy Hook, it revealed the thinly disguised ruse. No background check would have prevented Sandy Hook. Unless the measure being proposed would have had an impact on the incident being used to push an agenda, then it is an obvious ploy to capitalize on tragedy.
It’s more real now than it has been in the past - when people say they don’t want to ban guns, or they respect the 2nd amendment, that pretense is no longer viable because it’s quite obvious that gun control advocates simply want bans, repeal of the 2nd, and every other thing they can get away with.
The only one saying “too soon” is you. So to the question of when there will be meaningful debate, it seems your answer is never.
Does this make sense to you? Because it doesn’t to me. The source of that quip is Rahm Emmanuel from right after the financial meltdown in 2008. So, not a tragedy with a white American shooting a bunch of people. I’m not seeing the relevance.
At least this is a real policy proposal. Should the 2nd be repealed? Why do you think it is that no serious politician is pushing for this?