a well regulated militia

[bostjan]

Genuinely curious, what are these passable options?

Because to me the gun debate in the US reeks of "We've tried nothing and are all out of ideas" when it comes to limiting mass shootings.

Well, Bill Clinton had the so called "Assault weapons ban" pushed through, and mass shootings almost went away, but the GOP kept trying to overturn it, so, surprising no one, the restrictions weren't renewed, and, almost immediately after, mass shootings became commonplace again, or, more accurately became way more commonplace than they had ever been prior.

So, I know it's a weasely point to argue, but I'd say it's even worse than what you said:

"We've tried very very little and it surprisingly worked, but it upset the elephant people, and everything upsets the elephant people, so there's nothing we can do (but also doing nothing upsets the elephant people)."

 

[StevenC]

That is a stupid idea. In my country, they first started with mandatory registration, people said "ok, more gun safety". Then when the radical government took over, they started confiscation. They knew exactly where every gun was, and the fascists started coming down knocking on your door, looking for your guns. Then they murdered us in cold blood, and there was nothing we could do about it. Men, women, children. This all happened in my lifetime.

So Please, keep your stupid ideas to yourself. You have never have to live what I've lived through. You have no earthly idea what you are talking about.
I immigrated to this country precisely because we have he right to defend ourselves.
Tyranny is worth fighting against and dying fighting against.

Where exactly are you actually from?

Because lots of other countries have gotten rid of guns without fascists taking over.

 

[tedtan]

It's confusing because this is a "where there's a will, there's a way" situation. It's not some engineering task where we're not sure if the goal is possible. Being that that is the case, all proposals are grounded in reality.

I get that.

I just see people up in arms about the police in the US shooting black men over and over in situations that did not warrant the shooting and nothing happens. There are protests, trials, massive news coverage, bills proposed in congress, but still nothing comes of it.

Likewise, every time there is a mass shooting, we have a similar situation where people are up in arms, protest, the news channels cover the situation, TV shows discuss the issue, bills are proposed in congress, etc., etc., and still nothing comes of it.

So my question is: is this really something that can be driven by the people at this point in time or do we need a different approach?

I would personally start by increasing sentencing on illegally owning guns, and requiring all guns to be registered. Being found in possession of an unregistered gun would result in mandatory prison time. There would be strict limits on how many and what types of firearms people are allowed to own. As soon as this goes into effect, many of the current assault rifles would need to be turned in. This in turn would mean much fewer gun sales, as you may already own the maximum legal amount of guns. Gun manufacturers would have to stop relying on civilian sales, and produce less. When people die, their guns are turned over to the state. As time goes on, guns are taken more and more out of circulation, and 30 years from now we have far fewer guns floating around. If problems with gun violence persist, it will be an increasingly easier situation for policy to address.

A lot of these could be good and I don’t mean to discredit them, but they are still a medium-term solution. Also, any guns turned in should be bought at fair market value rather than leave the individual at a financial loss, including any guns turned over to the government upon death (I’m opposed to the idea of death taxes in general, not specifically regarding guns; death shouldn’t be a taxable transaction).

Genuinely curious, what are these passable options?

Because to me the gun debate in the US reeks of "We've tried nothing and are all out of ideas" when it comes to limiting mass shootings.

When someone purchases a gun, they are subject to a national level background check. Unfortunately, these background checks are often incomplete; as @sleewell mentioned, records were purged from the database under Trump, local level infractions are not always pushed up to the national level, and there are loopholes where you can purchase a gun without a background check (from an individual, at a gun show, and similar). So a lot of the options more easily implemented options revolve around closing these loopholes in the background checks process, which don’t from a complete solution by any means, but are a start. Another one that is fairly widely supported is bringing the various gun regulations, which vary greatly from one state to another, under a common, national level regulations. Don’t get me wrong - this low hanging fruit isn’t the end goal in and of itself, but it’s foolish to just pass it by.

From there, support will begin decreasing, but things like mandatory training prior to owning a firearm, licenses to own a firearm, registration of firearms, requirements to keep guns locked in a safe so they can’t be accessed by third parties, liability insurance for gun owners, etc. are all things I’ve heard mentioned. These ideas will be a harder sell, and won’t be accepted by the hardcore 2A types, but as with anything else, how you sell the idea matters A WHOLE LOT, and I think these could largely be pushed through if they came from the gun industry itself rather than the anti gun crowd. It will take some doing to get the gun industry on board, and loosening regulations on gun manufacturers would be counterproductive, but lowered taxes/tax credits for a period of time could be an effective incentive to convince them. From there, if the message is pushed down through the manufacturers, the NRA, the “influencers” (I hate that term), the gun shops and shooting ranges, then the regular people will buy in.

This doesn’t solve the problem entirely, but it brings us closer to being in line with Western European nations that have significantly lower gun crime issues than we have here in the US.

And from there, you can start looking into some of the things @narad mentioned, but these will be much tougher still to push through.

I just want to know why it's everyone else's problem to solve?

We collectively have a problem, so we should collectively work to solve it. I’m not delusional enough to think that if we come up with a workable solution here on SSO that we can push that through congress, but it’s better to try and fail than to not bother trying.

 

[bostjan]

I suppose if we mostly agreed on something actionable, it wouldn't hurt for those of us in the USA to write their representatives. If enough people give feedback, it might light a fire.

My concerns are simply that there is just no middle ground people from different parts of the spectrum would ever agree on, so it'll ultimately go nowhere here, which is just sort of a microcosm indication of what it'll be like in congress.

I know I sound like a broken record, but more effective gun control is a necessary part of the solution, but also, I don't think it's the only necessary part. And that just makes it even more difficult to ever get this to go anywhere.

 

[tedtan]

No. You're living in a fantasy as much as you complain I am.

I meant to clarify yesterday, but seem to have brain farted, so to clarify, my point wasn’t that you live in a fantasy or to insult you at all. No offense was intended to you and you have my apologies if it came across that way.

I was trying to say that in order to sell people on an idea, we have to give them a reason that they care about, and likely a means of implementing that idea, if we expect them to buy in. So saying “get rid of all guns” without a reason for them to buy in or a means to implement the idea is as salable to them as trying to sell them tickets to the fantasy trip I referenced.

 

[tedtan]

My concerns are simply that there is just no middle ground people from different parts of the spectrum would ever agree on, so it'll ultimately go nowhere here, which is just sort of a microcosm indication of what it'll be like in congress.

It certainly seems that way based on the discussions we’ve had here. And, unfortunately, that equals maintaining the status quo (based on almost twenty four years of status quo maintained since the Columbine shooting).

I know I sound like a broken record, but more effective gun control is a necessary part of the solution, but also, I don't think it's the only necessary part. And that just makes it even more difficult to ever get this to go anywhere.

I agree. This is a far more complex issue than simply the guns alone, but people think I’m crazy when I suggest that.

 

[Riff the Road Dog]

Part of it is that modern life is just too stressful. People are more affluent than ever before in terms of what sort of shit we can buy. People have more laws protecting their health (at least until they get sick) and more personal freedoms than ever before (still maybe a long way to go, though), yet, people in the USA are more unhappy than they were at any other point in history for which we have anything that looks like data. Even in the damned Great Depression, when all there was to eat was dust and old newspapers, Americans were happier than they are now. Not a gender thing, just in general.

It's the perfect storm of things that gets people to snap, and that perfect storm is brewing hard right now. I think it has a lot to do with the contrary signals everyone gets. For women it might be that if they dress too provocatively, they are shamed for having loose morals, but if they don't they are shamed for being prudish. For men, oh, where to even begin... needless to say, society is not a monolithic voice, and it has a lot of loud contradictory things to say to everyone, but I think men have it the worst with this particular thing at this particular time.

Think about it - you get pulled over by a cop. Cop says you are speeding. You weren't speeding. It makes you mad. BUT, cop pulls you over and writes you for both impeding the flow of traffic AND speeding, and you'd be livid! This is modern society in a nutshell. Everyone is instructed to both do and not do the same things, to overdo one thing, but also not to overdo the same thing. I think that's the sort of shit that pushes people over the edge. But first, the edge has to be set up, the person has to be near it, and, most relevant to this discussion, the person has to see an opportunity to do something about it.

So, it isn't just about having the gun. It isn't just about society sending frustrating signals. It isn't just any one thing - it's an unholy concoction of all sort of things that are wrong - teach people contradictory things from a young age, give them everything material that they want, especially weapons, but give them none of the important things that they need, offer no social safety net for people who struggle, then flip them in the nose until they snap...

Bravo. This is about as close as I've heard anyone in this thread come to address the root causes of the escalation of violence in America. Nice.

 

[StevenC]

I meant to clarify yesterday, but seem to have brain farted, so to clarify, my point wasn’t that you live in a fantasy or to insult you at all. No offense was intended to you and you have my apologies if it came across that way.

I was trying to say that in order to sell people on an idea, we have to give them a reason that they care about, and likely a means of implementing that idea, if we expect them to buy in. So saying “get rid of all guns” without a reason for them to buy in or a means to implement the idea is as salable to them as trying to sell them tickets to the fantasy trip I referenced.

Yeah I understand, don't worry about it.

I mean, I agree with you. But my point is that there is an idea that has worked in other places, but the reason isn't good enough. And the reason they have been given is to stop children dying school shootings.

Ergo, they prefer their hobby to human lives.

 

[TedEH]

That is a stupid idea. In my country, they first started with mandatory registration, people said "ok, more gun safety". Then [...] fascists

I know someone else beat me to it, but I'm curious where this whole bit came from too. There are examples of places with gun registries that did not lead immediately to fascism. I don't remember the details, but Canada requires you to at least have a license of some kind to have any firearms, unless that's changed since I last looked at it.

 

[tedtan]

Yeah I understand, don't worry about it.

I mean, I agree with you. But my point is that there is an idea that has worked in other places, but the reason isn't good enough. And the reason they have been given is to stop children dying school shootings.

Ergo, they prefer their hobby to human lives.

I suspect there’s more to it, but maybe you are right.

 

[narad]

The all or nothing attitude leads to no change, though. Here is the issue:

In order to implement any of these changes, you need the politicians to enact the laws implementing them, but they’re not implementing them. People have been up in arms for decades now, but the politicians are still only offering thoughts and prayers. Why is this? It’s not because the 2A types won’t give an inch (there are not enough of them to force the issue through votes), and it’s not because some rich white guys want to keep some of their guns. It’s because, as I mentioned in an earlier response, the US politicians have been bought by the gun lobby. Full stop.

So let’s think this through.

How do you get the politicians to come over to your way of thinking? Do we simply vote in new politicians to represent us? No, that won’t work; these new politicians will merely end up being bought by the gun lobby and/or forced to toe the party line by the party leaders and whips. So what will work? Gaining control of the gun lobby. And how do you gain control of the gun lobby? I don’t know, but I assume you would need to put together something like an “Anti Gun Investment Fund” in order to obtain the funds necessary to buy the US gun industry. So once you have the funds, you buy the gun manufacturers in the US. And the gun importers. And the ammo manufacturers. And the ammo importers. And the gun and ammo distributors. And the gun and ammo retailers. And the gun ranges. Or, perhaps you could simply create an anti gun lobby to go head to head with the pro gun lobby and buy the politicians that way (keep in mind that they’ll be happy to take money from both sides here, so it still won’t be cheap). Then you can convince the politicians to vote (read, buy their vote) for the no gun position and implement laws along those lines (we’ll ignore enforcing those laws for now, which will be a whole other problem).

So that’s doable, but it isn’t a short term strategy; it will take a good while to accomplish.

And in the meantime, you can either 1) accept the gun controls that people are willing to support at this point in time in order to accomplish making some steps in the right direction and benefit some, though not all, of the people who might otherwise end up being victims of gun violence, while continuing to push for your longer term goals, or 2) continue insisting on removing all guns and accomplish nothing more than maintaining the current status quo which only serves to benefit the gun industry and corrupt politicians.

Which sounds like the better option?

I don't get point (1). Of course liberals will accept all the gun controls that people are willing to support at this point in time. Just not if it is conditional on not pushing for more effective legislation immediately after. It's not a this or that. It would be a this AND that, if (1) was actually even accomplishable.

Really what is probably necessary is a cultural sea change. It's similar to smoking. At one point, people thought smoking gave them a cool look, and so they actually wanted to associate themselves with that culture. The sophisticated guy who got the girl smoked X brand cigarettes, etc. Then, really over the course of 5-10 years, it went from cool to pariah status. People were less attractive if they smoked. Over time the % of americans who smoke went from almost half to about 1/10. And now even all the e-cigs and vaping stuff that was trendy is sort of mucking up those stats.

And one of the key parts of getting the sea change is greater cultural awareness of the problem. I think the whole "thoughts and prayers" said in mockery of those who do nothing is a great example. For decades we tolerated that BS, but now it's basically gone from the playbook. The Onion also has done a great job with it's satire, repeating it after each incident. We just have to keep educating and fighting the cultural war.

Also demographic-wise, it's clear that this is largely a white household issue. While it's against my real goal of reducing gun violence, I would love a sort of "a legal gun in every minority hand" sort of policy, just for the effect it would have. So whenever the scared old white guy has to think of the people he's afraid of, now he has to imagine they also have guns.

 

[Drew]

You can disagree with Scalia, but saying he "cannot read" is an idiotic statement.

The man is widely considered one of the greatest constitutional scholars of all time. He was a respected constitutional law professor, and very successful attorney prior to his appointment. He was so revered that he was confirmed unanimously 98-0. Yes, confirmed unanimously by the Senate!

Saying Scalia "cannot read" is like saying Usain Bolt is slow, Hafthor Bjornson is weak or Sir Isaac Newton was dumb.

"Context needed."

A surprising number of Supreme Court Justices were confirmed nearly unanimously, and Sandra Day O'Conner, who thought Scalia was dead-wrong about, well, damned near anything, was confirmed five years before him 99-0, with one fewer abstention.

U.S. Senate: Supreme Court Nominations (1789-Present)

_Supreme Court Nominations (1789-Present)

www.senate.gov

The strict near-party-line voting of the last several years is a historical aberration, rather than the norm, and probably has as much to do with the decision not to even give Merrick Garland a hearing, much less a vote, and then Trump's hardline partisan picks hand-selected by the Federalist Society to be reliable conservative/originalist votes rather than impartial arbiters. A couple of them unquestionably committed perjury in their confirmation hearings, while we're at it describing Roe vs. Wade as "settled law," before overturning it the very first chance they got.

Throughout US history, most Supreme Court Justices were confirmed with a simpel voice vote, and the ones who were actually put to a formal ballot generally won nearly unanimous support. It's been extremely rare for a justice to lose more than 10-20 votes, and not fail to reach a majority and be confirmed. You consider Bostjan's statement "idiotic," but you also are evidently ignorant of the history of Supreme Court nomination proceedings in this country, despite your willingness to throw your opinion around like you're speaking from a place of authority.

If you want to say ANYTHING in support of Scalia, it's not his confirmation vote. It's that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was confirmed 96-3 though whose judicial record I suspect is far less to your taste, may have disagreed with him fiercely on the bench, but held him in respect and considered him a personal friend.

 

[Glades]

"Context needed."

A surprising number of Supreme Court Justices were confirmed nearly unanimously, and Sandra Day O'Conner, who thought Scalia was dead-wrong about, well, damned near anything, was confirmed five years before him 99-0, with one fewer abstention.

U.S. Senate: Supreme Court Nominations (1789-Present)

_Supreme Court Nominations (1789-Present)

www.senate.gov

The strict near-party-line voting of the last several years is a historical aberration, rather than the norm, and probably has as much to do with the decision not to even give Merrick Garland a hearing, much less a vote, and then Trump's hardline partisan picks hand-selected by the Federalist Society to be reliable conservative/originalist votes rather than impartial arbiters. A couple of them unquestionably committed perjury in their confirmation hearings, while we're at it describing Roe vs. Wade as "settled law," before overturning it the very first chance they got.

Throughout US history, most Supreme Court Justices were confirmed with a simpel voice vote, and the ones who were actually put to a formal ballot generally won nearly unanimous support. It's been extremely rare for a justice to lose more than 10-20 votes, and not fail to reach a majority and be confirmed. You consider Bostjan's statement "idiotic," but you also are evidently ignorant of the history of Supreme Court nomination proceedings in this country, despite your willingness to throw your opinion around like you're speaking from a place of authority.

If you want to say ANYTHING in support of Scalia, it's not his confirmation vote. It's that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was confirmed 96-3 though whose judicial record I suspect is far less to your taste, may have disagreed with him fiercely on the bench, but held him in respect and considered him a personal friend.

Hindsight 20-20, but thank goodness Garland was never confirmed. What a disastrous Attorney General that guy is.

 

[Randy]

:texas:

 

[tedtan]

I thought I responded, but it doesn’t appear that I did.

Yeah I understand, don't worry about it.

I mean, I agree with you. But my point is that there is an idea that has worked in other places, but the reason isn't good enough. And the reason they have been given is to stop children dying school shootings.

Ergo, they prefer their hobby to human lives.

I think the issue is that that communication requires not only one party expressing the idea, but also the other party(ies) receiving and understanding the idea and that message isn’t being received and understood here. It’s dismissed before any understanding can take place, so the messaging needs to phrased in a way that the recipient will allow the message through so it can be understood. But even that assumes that they are operating from a good faith position and willing to help resolve the issues and, admittedly, a lot of them are not.

I don't get point (1). Of course liberals will accept all the gun controls that people are willing to support at this point in time. Just not if it is conditional on not pushing for more effective legislation immediately after. It's not a this or that. It would be a this AND that, if (1) was actually even accomplishable.

Point 1 is mainly pointing to discussion here. At the national level, at least, politicians may be willing to accept something less than exactly what they have proposed.

Really what is probably necessary is a cultural sea change. It's similar to smoking. At one point, people thought smoking gave them a cool look, and so they actually wanted to associate themselves with that culture. The sophisticated guy who got the girl smoked X brand cigarettes, etc. Then, really over the course of 5-10 years, it went from cool to pariah status. People were less attractive if they smoked. Over time the % of americans who smoke went from almost half to about 1/10. And now even all the e-cigs and vaping stuff that was trendy is sort of mucking up those stats.

And one of the key parts of getting the sea change is greater cultural awareness of the problem. I think the whole "thoughts and prayers" said in mockery of those who do nothing is a great example. For decades we tolerated that BS, but now it's basically gone from the playbook. The Onion also has done a great job with it's satire, repeating it after each incident. We just have to keep educating and fighting the cultural war.

Also demographic-wise, it's clear that this is largely a white household issue. While it's against my real goal of reducing gun violence, I would love a sort of "a legal gun in every minority hand" sort of policy, just for the effect it would have. So whenever the scared old white guy has to think of the people he's afraid of, now he has to imagine they also have guns.

I agree that the gun culture is part of the issue in that it maintains an inventory of guns that could potentially be used improperly, but I don’t see it as being that big a part of the issue in and of itself. Obviously if these people were to get rid of their guns, there would be fewer guns available to be stolen and used nefariously, but at the same time:

1. People carrying out these mass shootings appear to be planning their crimes out in advance, to include obtaining the gun(s) they will use in carrying out their crime. The US gun culture does not support or approve of these crimes; if anything, mass shooters are looked at as losers throughout the media. Also, the guns used in carrying out these crimes aren’t stolen from the gun culture crowd; they seem to be largely purchased through legal means (though there have been some who were prohibited from owning firearms altogether and a few where an underage shooter has obtained them, with it without permission, from a family member who obtained them legally). Addressing this point would likely require some form of gun control rather than just a cultural adjustment (though, note that I am suggesting that a gun culture adjustment would be out of place).

2. When we look at gun deaths in the US, over half (roughly 54%, depending on specific year) are suicides, and the vast majority of homicides are not related to mass shootings, they’re committed while carrying out other crimes - robberies, drug deals and other gang related violence, or even as outright murders. While I don’t mean to make these victims seem more important than victims of mass shootings, they do far outnumber them, so addressing these issues should be high on the priority list, and wouldn’t be addressed through a shift in gun culture, either. This is where access to better (and especially mental) healthcare, better and less expensive education (including trade related programs), actual rehabilitation programs within the US prisons, and other social safety nets would help greatly.

Don’t get me wrong, a change in gun culture will help - it’s just one part of a multifaceted solution to the gun crime issue.

 

[zappatton2]

This might be the best interview I've ever seen regarding the madness of removing any and all restrictions from the ownership or operation of firearms. It is no less than shocking that this Dahm fellow is so far removed from any fact-based reality that he literally can't engage with fact-based reality. Not sure if this is the whole interview, I watched it on "The Problem with John Stewart" originally and only skimmed this, but man, if this is a window into the thinking, or lack thereof, from the political gun lobby, I just don't have words.

And I have to wonder if this guy walked away thinking he nailed this interview and made solid points? And the pivot to fatherlessness, lol, we all know the subtle implications of that whole argument.

 

[Dumple Stilzkin]

This might be the best interview I've ever seen regarding the madness of removing any and all restrictions from the ownership or operation of firearms. It is no less than shocking that this Dahm fellow is so far removed from any fact-based reality that he literally can't engage with fact-based reality. Not sure if this is the whole interview, I watched it on "The Problem with John Stewart" originally and only skimmed this, but man, if this is a window into the thinking, or lack thereof, from the political gun lobby, I just don't have words.

And I have to wonder if this guy walked away thinking he nailed this interview and made solid points? And the pivot to fatherlessness, lol, we all know the subtle implications of that whole argument.

If there was ever a "celebrity" that should be a politician, it's him.

 

[Drew]

Hindsight 20-20, but thank goodness Garland was never confirmed. What a disastrous Attorney General that guy is.

"Source needed" now.

Also, did you ever mention what country you were from, where they took all the guns and then it turned into a socialist authoritarian hellhole, or did we all just kind of move on from that?

 

[SpaceDock]

That is a stupid idea. In my country, they first started with mandatory registration, people said "ok, more gun safety". Then when the radical government took over, they started confiscation. They knew exactly where every gun was, and the fascists started coming down knocking on your door, looking for your guns. Then they murdered us in cold blood, and there was nothing we could do about it. Men, women, children. This all happened in my lifetime.

So Please, keep your stupid ideas to yourself. You have never have to live what I've lived through. You have no earthly idea what you are talking about.
I immigrated to this country precisely because we have he right to defend ourselves.
Tyranny is worth fighting against and dying fighting against.

Wait a minute. I thought the guns were supposed to save us from the tyrannical government. So if the people who had the guns were unable to protect themselves and were the target of the fascist government, then wtf is the point of the guns?

 

[Drew]

So, poking around Google, the closest match to Glades' story is Guatemala - gun control was implemented in 1964, and in the late 70s and early 80s it's now generally accepted that the government's actions against the Mayans constitute genocide, after the government decided Mayan peasants were siding with rebels in a bloody civil war. Estimates run around 40,000-60,000 were killed.

The biggest problems with this "gun control led to fascists murdering us." One, it's an awfully long time between cause and effect, damned near 20 years. Two, this occurred in the middle of a civil war, so there were obviously no shortages of guns in the country held by opposition-aligned Guatemalans. And three, sustenance-level Mayan farmers probably wouldn't have been buying AK47s in a contra-factual world were gun control didn't exist, considering the Rio Negro massacres were kicked off after Mayans were arrested for allegedly stealing beans, because they were starving.

Maybe the bigger issue here isn't gun control, it's just that civil wars are really, really, really shitty things to live through, and tend to involve a LOT of human rights abuses up to and including genocide.

Could be wrong here, but ten minutes of poking around on Google suggests that Glades is probably at least in his 50s if he remembers this, and was Guatemalan before coming to Florida - likely as a refugee, which makes his views on immigration that much more surprising.