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

Great Debates
61

Whatever the TSA did or did not do about pocket knives is immaterial to the discussion, as gun control has been on the table – and consistently opposed, weakened, and otherwise thwarted by the gun lobby – since at least 1934. Meanwhile effective gun control has gone ahead in every other civilized country on earth, generally over the course of at least the last half-century, so “hasty do-somethingism” is not at play here. And the results are plainly evident, reflected in the appalling statistics of gun violence in the US, not just mass shootings, where compared to any other economically advanced democracy on earth gun violence in America is a national epidemic. The prevalence of mass shootings is really just a side effect of the underlying epidemic.

So your idea of “rational risk assessment” seems incredibly misguided as it seems perfectly rational to address the issue of thousands of preventable deaths every year due to guns that other countries don’t experience, and at no real cost except the fictions conjured up by the gun lobby that nobody else in any other country seems to care about which, stripped of the distortions and exaggerations, amount to the inconvenience to gun owners of licensing, registration, and background checks – most of whom in those other countries fully recognize the critically important reasons for those measures.

One could bring forward an even stronger argument that a “rational risk assessment” of the risks of commercial air travel show the risk to be absolutely minimal, so why even worry about about a couple of African airlines that had crashes of the newest 737? Yet because this isn’t an incredibly politicized issue with undertones of religious zealotry, everything possible is being done to prevent it from ever happening again and costing even one life whose loss could have been prevented, and the prevention cost will likely total billions of dollars. And because it wasn’t an incredibly politicized issue with undertones of religious zealotry, the deaths of several children from sharp-pointed metal lawn darts caused the CPSC to ban them outright. Yet thousands of deaths every year from firearms – including the deaths of more children from firearms in the US than in a dozen comparable industrialized countries combined – are perfectly A-OK, and opposition to such is apparently “irrational” – because, hey, most kids in gun-owner households don’t die, so why worry! :rolleyes:

62

…and if lobbying groups for the gun manufacturers were no longer allowed to bribe elected officials of both parties with campaign contributions. There are a lot of issues that don’t get addressed because there is way too much money poured into our political system to buy votes. I doubt this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

Also, a big impediment to seeing anything done on this comes from the extremes on both right and left whenever this topic comes up. Conservative rhetoric that the govt. is coming to take your guns and far Left calls for banning all guns/repealing the Second Amendment always derail any attempt to reach consensus and prevent things like banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines from being implemented.

63

I suspect that we may see some “spite” shootings as a result of gun control. In the same way that the Aurora theater shooter specifically shot up a “gun-free” zone (perhaps to show the futility of such signs/notices,) we may see some murderer specifically procure or build an AR-15 and use it to mow down a crowd if an AR-15 ban is ever passed (whereas they might previously have “only” used a pistol.)
Not that that means we shouldn’t do gun control, but it could intensify the desire of mass murderers to carry out such shootings to show they “won’t be told what to do.”

64

The reason this differs from the 737 Max software and sharp lawn darts examples you listed above is that there is absolutely no positive benefit to faulty aircraft software or sharp lawn dart; no one benefits. But in the instances of guns, some people can legitimately claim that having a gun saved their life in dealing with home intruders or robbers, etc.

Not that that excuses the private ownership of AK-47s, but there is an argument of benefit that some gun owners can claim for revolvers, pistols, etc.

65

Well, of course if you cherry pick, and say nations like Mexico are not “developed”. :dubious:Overall, the USA is smack dab in the middle of all nations in murder rate.

But the cause of the mass shootings is not easy availability of guns. It’s media glorification of the shooters. This have been shown by numerous peer reviewed studies by noted sociologists, and I have linked to them previously.

In any case, the only way to stop all shootings is to round up and confiscate all 300 Million guns in civilian hands, a task which illegal and pretty much impossible.

Bans on sales of Assault weapons, etc, will have no effect on either murder rates or mass shootings. Assault weapons are simply not used in any significant numbers in crime.

66

One has to wonder who’s doing the mischaracterizing here, since the plain meaning of “they banned guns” is that no one is allowed to own a gun. Which is hard to take seriously since of course that is not even remotely the case in Australia, nor in any other modern democracy in the world, anywhere.

Furthermore, no, a total gun ban is not “what I would actually want”, since that’s neither sensible nor realistic and doesn’t exist anywhere that I’m aware of. What I believe the US needs to do to solve its gun violence problem is to somehow – and I don’t really know how – shift its gun culture and corresponding gun laws to be more like the sensible controls of all other countries.

The VOX figure may have been inflated by using criteria you don’t agree with, but you can’t deny the fact that the record of mass shootings in the US is pretty damned impressive compared to all other comparable advanced democracies in the world, and in fact compared to all of them put together! Not to mention that all “gun-related incidents” are equally off the chart.

That’s probably true, but not pertinent to the larger points about gun control. One of which is that it’s not only about background checks, but also about types of weapons and magazine capacities and a hierarchy of licensing requirements. In most jurisdictions that I’m familiar with there’s no way that a suburban mother with a young son – particularly one with a psychiatric history – would have been able or willing to acquire the kind of quasi-military arsenal that she felt would help her bond with her disturbed son. Most importantly, the culture implied in the licensing requirements would make the ownership of such weapons – or anything other than an ordinary hunting rifle – absolutely alien to the mainstream culture of any country that I know of – except of course the USA. Anywhere else, mom would more likely have taken the kid to a baseball game or to an amusement park.

Maybe because there’s not a hope in hell of that coming to pass, just like there’s not really a hope in hell of meaningful gun control legislation at this point in history. At this point I’ll just slightly restate, if I may, something pertinent that I said in a Pit thread, which is not particularly Pit-rated and so is suitable here:

What we call “gun culture” is probably a subset of a larger American culture, the culture of individualism, where the word “freedom” is taken to mean the primacy of individualism over a collective sense of social responsibility. It means the perspective that if you, personally, own a gun, and you see it 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 individualism.

And that’s why nothing really meaningful 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”.

67

So, what could have been done- legally- which would have prevented further mass shootings?

68

Even that wouldnt be enough to repeal the 2nd. The Constitution’s Article V requires that an amendment be started by 2/3rd of the House and Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by 2/3rd of the state legislatures. It is up to the states to approve a new amendment, with 3/4 of the states voting to ratifying it.

Not gonna happen.

69

All those would be legal, and none would do diddly squat to stop mass shootings.

70

Actually to prevent Mass Shootings, we need to repeal the 1st Ad.

Not a very happy idea is it?

Or perhaps we could get the media to voluntarily agree not to disclose the names of the shooters, like they agree not to disclose the names of rape victims.

71

Actually her #2 would reduce violent crime and murder by a bit, altho little or no effect on Mass shootings. Getting rid of the straw man dealers would impede the flow of guns from legal gun dealers (thru the nasty guys known as straw dealers) to criminals. It could be done, it’s* legal*, it wouldnt hurt the casual gun owner, and it’s a idea I have been promoting for like a decade.

However, yes, based upon her stated Executive orders upon becoming Prez, she is clueless.

72

Yes, Australia did pass sweeping gun bans, as Bone said. However, it is unclear whether or not they did anything. The results have been argued and debated, with some experts saying it worked, and other saying it did next to nothing.

So, it’s possible those sweeping gun bans did nothing.

73

Many states have not even passed red flag laws - those allow a family member to ask a court to take away guns from someone who they think is a risk for mental illness or other issues. Florida passed it after Parkland.

74

The source of the quip was you. I was mistaken to assume that since you typed it with your fingers into this thread, you intended it to have relevance? You were talking about the financial meltdown, not all the people who got shot by a white American this weekend?

75

Yes, of course #3. I should have added, that my point about her being on the right track is that she wants to ban some guns, not necessarily just assault weapons, however she does or does not define them. That is a solution that will work, if guns in general are banned in the right numbers.

76

“Gun control” that allows Connor Betts, Patrick Crusius, and Santino Legan to have guns is zero gun control.

77

No. The first requirement for a serious gun control debate should be understanding the gun control provisions we’ve enacted over previous decades and why they’ve failed. You appear to not even understand that we have enacted gun control provisions over previous decades.

78
79

Besides discriminatory gun control, what specifically has failed?

80

You don’t consider the fact that a bunch of people got shot in Gilroy, California last week, for one example, to be a failure of their gun control laws? That was California’s gun control working as desired?