4 ms·

End the Gun Epidemic in America

15 points by denzil_correa 11y ago

Alex3917 11y ago
What gun epidemic? Gun violence is near an all time low.
- benjohnson 11y ago
  It's necessary to create a galvanizing idea in the population in order to control them - hence the drumming of "gun epidemic" by government and media when the statistics show otherwise.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- bryanlarsen 11y ago
  That all time low is still 3 to 20 times higher than every other western nation.
awl130 11y ago
Leave it to a private institution like the NY times to have the gonads to do what Obama will not. Should we start a countdown, or an over/under pool, on when Obama will actually do something about this "gun epidemic"? Obviously gun control is a matter for Congress, but there is plenty of precedent where a President has galvanized public opinion to drive political change. One instance (albeit trivial) is when Pres. Ford in the 70s asked the nation to cut down on energy use. By commanding the airwaves and print media (a unilateral option still available to any sitting president), the next week citizens across the nation wore these stupid buttons in response. There are phenomenal tools available to the president to completely by-pass conventional political process. It is merely up to him to risk his own political capital and legacy to pull the trigger. Some may call it an abuse of power but if our society believes supremely in following one's conscience than surely history will vindicate him. This could be one of Obama's biggest miscalculations. If Obama is not careful, his few paragraphs in high school textbooks will include a sentence that reads, "Obama's presidency is marked by his lack of response to the American Gun Epidemic of the early 21st century, which during his tenure saw [1,000] lives lost, including 22 schoolchildren in Sandy Hook, leaving it to his successor to enact substantive gun control policy..."
toothbrush 11y ago
Absolutely. I'm consistently surprised that things like [1] are not seen as absurd and even illegal. I found another article, "Gun homicides in Poland are about as common as deaths from bicycle riders being hit by cars in the United States" (and many other variations) [2] very sad, too. How is it that a civilised nation allows such things to happen? The US seems like a very cool place, with so much potential, but increasingly, i'm considering putting it on my personal blacklist as far as destinations to look for work go. I just can't imagine living in fear of some concealed-carry-permit holding goon deciding to shoot the place up (and that's not even considering the violence perpetrated by legitimate LEOs...). Why would you want to have a killing machine lying around at home? That sounds horrific. 1. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/02/gun-tv-home-shopping-channel http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/02/gun-tv-home-s... 2. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/upshot/in-other-countries-youre-as-likely-to-be-killed-by-a-falling-object-as-a-gun.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/upshot/in-other-countries-... (was on HN recently)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- Hogg 11y ago
  "I just can't imagine living in fear of some concealed-carry-permit holding goon deciding to shoot the place up." You don't need a concealed-carry permit to carry a concealed gun; you just need one to do it LEGALLY. I would venture to guess that a person who carries concealed with the intent of committing murder will not have bothered to get a permit. My reasoning for keeping a killing machine (it lies around either in a safe or on my person at all times) is because crime happens, and criminals are willing to do things like use force and/or weapons. Police can't be everywhere, and while their response time here is pretty good, it's generally more than enough time for the criminals to do what they want and escape. I'd be happy to go back in time and un-invent guns, but as it stands, I don't see any way to remove all of them from all criminals' hands. So it seems to me the only viable preventive measure is for citizens to defend themselves with the same tools the criminals illegally use to commit their crimes.
bryanlarsen 11y ago
This was a front page above the fold editorial, which the NY Times has not done since the 1920s.
DougN7 11y ago
Do the same people who think there is a gun epidemic and guns need to be controlled more also think there is a drug epidemic and drugs need to be controlled more? It seems the same reasoning holds. Interestingly to me, conservatives and liberals seem to be inversely inconsistent on the underlying reasoning.
- hijiri 11y ago
  Reading your and similar comments made me think about it, and I came to the conclusion that the commonality between drugs and guns is superficial. Starting with what they have in common, I would say the restriction of either creates a black market, so that either allows criminal organizations to make a profit selling them. I think there is a difference even there though, since you can argue that criminals still benefit from loosening of gun regulations, because they would have easier access to guns. The primary buyers of illegal firearms are gangs and similar organizations, so that market is mainly there to support criminals who would not be able to obtain them without it. I don't know if that would change with increased restrictions though - maybe some otherwise law-abiding people would be willing to buy illegal guns for self-defense. On the other hand, I can't see how legalizing drugs could benefit crime organizations, except that maybe they could use their existing infrastructure to pivot into a legal drug business. Maybe that is a significant boon, but it doesn't seem worse than any other "legitimate business" that funds criminal activity. One of the main arguments in favor of drug legalization is quality control - street drugs often contain adulterants that are more debilitating than the drug itself. From what I know, this can't apply to guns since illegal guns are typically originally-legal guns from ordinary gun manufacturers, and don't have as many quality control issues. And the way they generate harm is different too - drugs mainly harm the user, and guns mainly harm whoever the gun is used on (may sometimes be the same as the user). So drug legalization might be desirable so the harmful qualities of drugs could be reduced (as earlier), and not restricting guns could be desirable in that people will be able to defend themselves from other people with guns (criminals with guns, an oppressive government). This simplifies the issue a bit, and ignores other factors like drug research or hunting and other non-self-defense uses of guns, but I think it's clear that there is significant room to agree with restricting one but not the other. My post may reek of bias toward drug legalization, but hopefully you agree that it's not as simple as "If you want to loosen drug/gun restrictions, you should also want to reduce gun/drug restrictions".
mindcrime 11y ago
"Gun epidemic" is a nonsense phrase. This is all complete tripe. If people want to talk about reducing violence then great, let's talk about that. Political game playing like this isn't helping anybody.
DrScump 11y ago
A key problem with this debate is that the NYT knowingly and deliberately prints falsehoods on numerous facets of politics in which it has taken an editorial position. A key example is their reference to this story, as if it supports the editorial case: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/tough-talk-and-a-cowardly-vote-on-terrorism.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/tough-talk-and-a-c... With the accompanying quote: "on Thursday every Senate Republican except Mark Kirk of Illinois voted against legislation to prevent people on the F.B.I.’s consolidated terrorist watchlist from purchasing guns or explosives." Well, the problem with this claim is that the amendment didn't fail because of anything to do with terrorism -- it's because that amendment would have overridden the language regarding the repeal of elements of Obamacare. Here's the proposed language it is looking to overlay: https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2015/12/01/senate-section/article/S8245-2 https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2015/12/01/sen... (the Obamacare component repeal) Now, here's the Feinstein amendment (scroll down to "SA 2910" portion, read it only): https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/senate-amendment/2910/text https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/senate-ame... Now, if you look at the amendment in a vacuum, it looks sorta like what it claims (but it looks odd, to the experienced eye, because there is no mention of a specific criteria for "terrorist" or refer to the FBI watchlist by its proper statute name). So it wouldn't have any effect on its own, being unenforceable vague. But that's not the point. Now, note carefully how the legislation starts: "In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the following:" See THAT: In LIEU OF the matter ("the matter" being ALL of SA 2874, the Obamacare repeal). The parent bill is H.R.3762 - Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015, which had NOTHING to do with terrorism, or guns. That's the first clue right there. Congressional Democrats have used this tactic (overwriting legislation they oppose with unrelated content that sounds obviously beneficial in order to trick the media into carrying water for their politicking) clear back to the Tom Foley days, if not Tip O'Neill or beyond. The ignorant media consumers have been duped, successfully, because few bother to look at the bills... ...which, in this case, took me all of about 8-10 clicks in total.

15 points by denzil_correa 11y ago

Alex3917 11y ago

What gun epidemic? Gun violence is near an all time low.

benjohnson 11y ago
It's necessary to create a galvanizing idea in the population in order to control them - hence the drumming of "gun epidemic" by government and media when the statistics show otherwise.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
bryanlarsen 11y ago
That all time low is still 3 to 20 times higher than every other western nation.

awl130 11y ago

Leave it to a private institution like the NY times to have the gonads to do what Obama will not. Should we start a countdown, or an over/under pool, on when Obama will actually do something about this "gun epidemic"? Obviously gun control is a matter for Congress, but there is plenty of precedent where a President has galvanized public opinion to drive political change. One instance (albeit trivial) is when Pres. Ford in the 70s asked the nation to cut down on energy use. By commanding the airwaves and print media (a unilateral option still available to any sitting president), the next week citizens across the nation wore these stupid buttons in response. There are phenomenal tools available to the president to completely by-pass conventional political process. It is merely up to him to risk his own political capital and legacy to pull the trigger. Some may call it an abuse of power but if our society believes supremely in following one's conscience than surely history will vindicate him. This could be one of Obama's biggest miscalculations. If Obama is not careful, his few paragraphs in high school textbooks will include a sentence that reads, "Obama's presidency is marked by his lack of response to the American Gun Epidemic of the early 21st century, which during his tenure saw [1,000] lives lost, including 22 schoolchildren in Sandy Hook, leaving it to his successor to enact substantive gun control policy..."

toothbrush 11y ago

Absolutely. I'm consistently surprised that things like [1] are not seen as absurd and even illegal. I found another article, "Gun homicides in Poland are about as common as deaths from bicycle riders being hit by cars in the United States" (and many other variations) [2] very sad, too. How is it that a civilised nation allows such things to happen? The US seems like a very cool place, with so much potential, but increasingly, i'm considering putting it on my personal blacklist as far as destinations to look for work go. I just can't imagine living in fear of some concealed-carry-permit holding goon deciding to shoot the place up (and that's not even considering the violence perpetrated by legitimate LEOs...). Why would you want to have a killing machine lying around at home? That sounds horrific. 1. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/02/gun-tv-home-shopping-channel http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/02/gun-tv-home-s... 2. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/upshot/in-other-countries-youre-as-likely-to-be-killed-by-a-falling-object-as-a-gun.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/upshot/in-other-countries-... (was on HN recently)

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
Hogg 11y ago
"I just can't imagine living in fear of some concealed-carry-permit holding goon deciding to shoot the place up." You don't need a concealed-carry permit to carry a concealed gun; you just need one to do it LEGALLY. I would venture to guess that a person who carries concealed with the intent of committing murder will not have bothered to get a permit. My reasoning for keeping a killing machine (it lies around either in a safe or on my person at all times) is because crime happens, and criminals are willing to do things like use force and/or weapons. Police can't be everywhere, and while their response time here is pretty good, it's generally more than enough time for the criminals to do what they want and escape. I'd be happy to go back in time and un-invent guns, but as it stands, I don't see any way to remove all of them from all criminals' hands. So it seems to me the only viable preventive measure is for citizens to defend themselves with the same tools the criminals illegally use to commit their crimes.

bryanlarsen 11y ago

This was a front page above the fold editorial, which the NY Times has not done since the 1920s.

DougN7 11y ago

Do the same people who think there is a gun epidemic and guns need to be controlled more also think there is a drug epidemic and drugs need to be controlled more? It seems the same reasoning holds. Interestingly to me, conservatives and liberals seem to be inversely inconsistent on the underlying reasoning.

hijiri 11y ago
Reading your and similar comments made me think about it, and I came to the conclusion that the commonality between drugs and guns is superficial. Starting with what they have in common, I would say the restriction of either creates a black market, so that either allows criminal organizations to make a profit selling them. I think there is a difference even there though, since you can argue that criminals still benefit from loosening of gun regulations, because they would have easier access to guns. The primary buyers of illegal firearms are gangs and similar organizations, so that market is mainly there to support criminals who would not be able to obtain them without it. I don't know if that would change with increased restrictions though - maybe some otherwise law-abiding people would be willing to buy illegal guns for self-defense. On the other hand, I can't see how legalizing drugs could benefit crime organizations, except that maybe they could use their existing infrastructure to pivot into a legal drug business. Maybe that is a significant boon, but it doesn't seem worse than any other "legitimate business" that funds criminal activity. One of the main arguments in favor of drug legalization is quality control - street drugs often contain adulterants that are more debilitating than the drug itself. From what I know, this can't apply to guns since illegal guns are typically originally-legal guns from ordinary gun manufacturers, and don't have as many quality control issues. And the way they generate harm is different too - drugs mainly harm the user, and guns mainly harm whoever the gun is used on (may sometimes be the same as the user). So drug legalization might be desirable so the harmful qualities of drugs could be reduced (as earlier), and not restricting guns could be desirable in that people will be able to defend themselves from other people with guns (criminals with guns, an oppressive government). This simplifies the issue a bit, and ignores other factors like drug research or hunting and other non-self-defense uses of guns, but I think it's clear that there is significant room to agree with restricting one but not the other. My post may reek of bias toward drug legalization, but hopefully you agree that it's not as simple as "If you want to loosen drug/gun restrictions, you should also want to reduce gun/drug restrictions".

mindcrime 11y ago

"Gun epidemic" is a nonsense phrase. This is all complete tripe. If people want to talk about reducing violence then great, let's talk about that. Political game playing like this isn't helping anybody.

DrScump 11y ago

A key problem with this debate is that the NYT knowingly and deliberately prints falsehoods on numerous facets of politics in which it has taken an editorial position. A key example is their reference to this story, as if it supports the editorial case: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/tough-talk-and-a-cowardly-vote-on-terrorism.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/tough-talk-and-a-c... With the accompanying quote: "on Thursday every Senate Republican except Mark Kirk of Illinois voted against legislation to prevent people on the F.B.I.’s consolidated terrorist watchlist from purchasing guns or explosives." Well, the problem with this claim is that the amendment didn't fail because of anything to do with terrorism -- it's because that amendment would have overridden the language regarding the repeal of elements of Obamacare. Here's the proposed language it is looking to overlay: https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2015/12/01/senate-section/article/S8245-2 https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2015/12/01/sen... (the Obamacare component repeal) Now, here's the Feinstein amendment (scroll down to "SA 2910" portion, read it only): https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/senate-amendment/2910/text https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/senate-ame... Now, if you look at the amendment in a vacuum, it looks sorta like what it claims (but it looks odd, to the experienced eye, because there is no mention of a specific criteria for "terrorist" or refer to the FBI watchlist by its proper statute name). So it wouldn't have any effect on its own, being unenforceable vague. But that's not the point. Now, note carefully how the legislation starts: "In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the following:" See THAT: In LIEU OF the matter ("the matter" being ALL of SA 2874, the Obamacare repeal). The parent bill is H.R.3762 - Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015, which had NOTHING to do with terrorism, or guns. That's the first clue right there. Congressional Democrats have used this tactic (overwriting legislation they oppose with unrelated content that sounds obviously beneficial in order to trick the media into carrying water for their politicking) clear back to the Tom Foley days, if not Tip O'Neill or beyond. The ignorant media consumers have been duped, successfully, because few bother to look at the bills... ...which, in this case, took me all of about 8-10 clicks in total.