Experimentation and status quo. In your rush to “Do Something,” you’ve forgotten the option of doing nothing. Which, all the hysterics and hyperbole aside, the status quo ain’t that goddamned bad. You wanna change it, you gotta show a compelling need, or net benefit to society—which you haven’t, not by a long shot, not even to the pro-control faction’s complete satisfaction. Monkeying around with constitutional amendments should not occur simply because we see what may happen.
Further, if social modeling is indeed mere quackery right now, there’s still no need to dismiss it out of hand. Further refinements and experience with it may indeed someday lead to something resembling Hari Seldon’s Psychohistory. Not that I’m even remotely sure that would be a good thing.
Keen. And I also say “pro-gun types”. Do you see a huge difference, or are you in search of something to be offended by?
And while you, personally, may not be anti-gun, I’d say the vast majority of…people…in the major anti-gun lobbies (Handguns Control Intl, etc) ARE anti-gun, and rabidly so.
Not by much. And that might be wrong, too, because I’ve seen numbers as high as 34 states. Simple research would bear out the true numbers, but this just substantiates Fenris’ claim that it is, in fact, the majority of the United States that is covered by " shall issue" laws.
Gee, Fenris, where would I ever get the impression that you were being dismissive and condescending?
Airman Doors, you’re correct that I was seriously underestimating the number of states with shall-issue laws. My apologies.
Uncle Beer, that’s pretty much what I figured. If social modeling doesn’t provide decent evidence, and you’re unwilling to experiment to see what works, your position is inherently an endorsement of the status quo, at least until we hit sci-fi fantasy land.
OK, sorry to have taken so long to get back. Life happens sometimes.
Bear with me while I do this by the numbers…
No one will claim that. Nice strawman. Does it keep the crows away?
This does not follow, and I’d like to understand by what twisted logic you claim this. I’ve read the Constitution front to back, and dozens and dozens of gun laws as well. Where did you find this ‘right’? I can’t find it anywhere.
The simple fact is that ‘intending mayhem’ is a condition entirely seperate from whatever rights you may or may not be otherwise exercising. The fact of owning a weapon, or holding one, in no way changes a person, their intent, or their legal rights. Period.
And how would you ensure this? There are tens of thousands of gun laws on the books, and they haven’t made a difference. The simple fact is that criminals will find weapons. For an admittedly extreme example, take a look at Northern Ireland. Despite sweeps, harshly restrictive laws, and years of interdiction, arms still find their way in. Not just handguns either, but serious, large-caliber, military weapons. Passing another won’t-be-enforced law won’t make the criminals any less criminal, nor will it dry-up the supply of illegal weapons. It might, perhaps drive the price up a bit, but not all that much. Instead of addressing the core issue of why they were doing a ‘drive-by’ in the first place, you took a cheap shot at people like myself, demonizing legal ownership , playing the same old discredited song. Criminals ignore laws. Period. Try using a little thought, instead. Why are there criminals that are so desperate as to feel the need for a ‘drive-by’? It’s not an easy answer, it’ll involve some work to find the answer and fix the problem. It’ll take time, money, and commitment to solve. You, instead, just voiced the old cannard. That’s a pretty shitty, intellectually lazy, and morally bankrupt approach, if you ask me.
Another nice Strawman. Does this one work any better than the first?
No, it’ll go on until this country is willing to drop the non-functional ‘quick-fix’ approach, and buckle down to deal with the root problems: Lack of social equality, justice, opportunity. Or, more poetically, we need what my mother calls the ‘level glance’. It’s not going to be easy, it’s not going to be cheap, but as long as people keep haring off after the ‘quick-fix’, it’s not going to happen at all.
Ah, the old ‘Think of the Children’ cry. As I pointed out above, removing firearms from the law-abiding does nothing for removing the criminal’s firearms. They don’t care about the law. Disarming the populace ain’t the answer, reducing the crime rate is.
Which America do you live in? De-facto registration has been with us for years. Instant background checks, waiting periods, intrusive dealer inspections & burdensome documentation requirements, and all the rest, didn’t prevent this crime. More pieces of paper won’t prevent a repeat.
Some things that might help:
Enough with passing new laws. How about some enforcement of existing law?
Improved instant background checks. These are useful, but only mildly so. There’s room for improvement.
Smart guns: This is becoming technically feasable, and will reduce the attractiveness of stolen weapons. Of course, it’ll do jack-shit for illegally transported, sold, and smuggled weapons, but then those are already against the law.
Positive social engagement with the lowest 5% of our populace. We need to make that old political cry ‘no one gets left behind’ real.
Oh, and since it seems you really did mean to tar me and people like me with responsibility for the crime, albeit indirectly, you get to continue to wear the Fuck You I previously bestowed upon you.
Not that I want to get involved, and I ought to make it clear I don’t really have any views with regards to Americans owning guns (I’m not even American and haven’t studied the situation, I realise things are very different over there), but it has been suggested over here in the UK that many of today’s gun incidents are not “despite” the strict gun laws, but work around them so to speak. Therefore, it can’t necessarily be argued that the gun ban has not been working, or has not brought down the murder rate.
This article, if you read down far enough, mentions the growing problem of legally bought pellet guns being converted to fire real ammunition. The article suggests these weapons account for over half the firearms recovered from crime scenes in London. I believe the authorities are now looking at banning these particular pellet guns. It seems almost a loophole to the ban, and we won’t see the real effect of the ban until these loopholes are closed.
This point rather backs up Tranquilis’ fair point that criminals will find a way, but IMHO those ways will become harder and harder as these loopholes are closed. Incidentally, I also think comparing the very organised and experienced “fighters” in Northern Ireland smuggling arms into the country with common criminal’s abilities is very slippery ground. For a start it is widely believed they have assistance from all kinds of large organisations with political aims.
Current population figures for the UK: about 59.8 million. Back in 1900, it was about 41.2 million.
The figure of 6-700 homicides in most years (apart from the 850 in the document Phil linked to) is highly unscientifically arrived at on the grounds that, when I’ve looked up Home Office figures for any given year, that’s the sort of range I’ve seen. Also, I rely on the late Professor Keith Simpson, whose entertaining memoir, Forty Years of Murder, tells the story of his life as England’s foremost forensic pathologist. Simpson gives the murder rate (a subset of homicide) as “remarkably consistent” at between 110 and 150 per year. This despite chnages in legislation, wars, and all kinds of social upheaval.
It does seem as though we’re doing something right… but what? It would be nice to think that we upstanding subjects of 'Er Majesty just have more respect for human life than you barbaric ex-colonials… but I can’t, honestly, say I believe this (I’ve met too many Millwall fans).
So does a sharp pointed stick. Or if you want to cause even more damage than a gun would, how about common chemicals in the proper proportions, or a vehicle? If someone decides to be a murderous yahoo, they’ll find a way to do it, and despite what you might think, there are cases where them using a gun is the better option…
Fair enough, and it was for that reason that I did point out that it was an extreme example. OTOH, here in the States, we have an extremetly well organized and run ongoing smuggling operation(s) to bring huge quantities of drugs into the country, which drugs are them supplied to a vast array of well-organized and fairly well-disciplined gangs. National authorities are finally begining to admit that they’re only intercepting a small fraction of these shipments. Firearms are already coming in by that route, albeit in fairly small quantities. It would be a small thing indeed to increase the quantities of arms, should they be ‘needed’ by the gangs. Once they reach the gangs, they diffuse outwards to smaller-time criminals. Banning would only cause the price to go up, but not remove the firearm from the equation. As we’ve already seen with the Gun Control Act of 1968, driving the price up doesn’t solve the crime issue.
To solve the crime issue, you need to get involved at the lowest levels of society, make opportunity, self-respect, and justice part of eveyone’s world. Doing so won’t remove all crime, but will reduce it dramatically, to the point where a drive-by will be national news, for being so completely rare.
Now, I myself am already engaged on that front, tutoring and mentoring those at risk. I have helped kids on the edge of falling through the cracks stay the course, get their diplomas, get jobs, get lives. There is nothing in the word that can compare to the feeling you get when you help a kid save their future.
It takes time out of your life, but it’s time well spent. Who will join me?
In that case, it’s down to relative convenience. Hauling concrete blocks up onto freeway bridges, or buying large amounts of arsenic, is inconvenient for the murderous Yahoo. Whereas spraying people with an easy-to-buy, legally held semiautomatic is a cinch.
Save for the fact (as supported by FBI crime statistics) that it’s not the leagally held weapons that are being used for these sort of crimes. The hugely overwhelming number of drive-bys and the like are done with illegaly-held arms. This tidbit keeps on getting missed. Lawfull owners, far-and-away, are also law-abiding.
My recollection of the FBI statistics, Tranquilis, is that gun homicides were split roughly 1/3 each among legally held guns, illegally held guns, and unidentified.
That’s certainly true, some organised people would always find a way to smuggle the weapons in. I do think that the average “yahoo” or petty criminal/thug looking to up his stakes would have problems though. I guess it’s a balance really. It wouldn’t stop everyone, and may even hand some organised criminals more power, but it would surely stop a large amount.
I imagine a good amount of the illegally held weapons used for crime were once legal, or were brought into America legally, so it could be argued a ban would have affected their numbers. Of course, this doesn’t make a blind bit of difference to getting rid of them now. It is stupid to think everyone would hand in their weapons, illegal or legal, if a ban were passed tomorrow in America.
Even with my very limited understanding of the situation it is still a very complicated issue. I doubt there is any one right answer, there are good and bad points to any (or no) action taken.
Good luck to you all!
P.S. Well done for taking positive action with the kids, Tranquilis, that earns my respect.