5 ms·

> Desperation for action. If things are going badly, something must be done. This is something, so it must be done. I see this in politics a lot. If things are

by ythl 10y ago

> Desperation for action. If things are going badly, something must be done. This is something, so it must be done. I see this in politics a lot. If things are going badly (another "mass shooting" happens), something must be done. Even if the solution is crap (ban "assault weapons") it is something, so it must be done.

plurinshael 10y ago
Given that we cannot provide free or extremely inexpensive mental health care, or somehow get 340mil Americans not to behave like jackals and crass narcissists all the time, to actually treat each other with respect, dignity, and compassion, I do not see how banning assault weapons is a "crap" solution. Sure, other guns may still be available but at least it's something.
- pc86 10y ago
  This is exactly what the GP is referring to. "We have to do something! This thing won't actually solve the problem but it lets me feel better because we did something, so let's do it! Pretty close to the definition of a crap solution.
  - croon 10y ago
    It won't stop any one occurence from happening, but it likely will mitigate the damage on that occurence. It's hard to argue it's not at least a step in the right direction. But I agree it won't solve the problem at heart.
    - pc86 10y ago
      Not trying to get into an off-topic political discussion, but the AWB I'm familiar with is almost entirely cosmetic in nature and would not have prevented any of the tragedies that are often used to prop it up. There are many effective things that could be done to lessen gun violence without needlessly restricting something that has no connection to that violence. Barrel shrouds are cosmetic but they make something an assault weapon, as does a pistol grip on a shotgun (which makes it less accurate for 99.9% of users). Comprehensive, mandatory background checks? Of course. "This gun looks scary and is therefore dangerous?" Nonsense.
      - Retric 10y ago
        If it where purely cosmetic people would not be fighting it. Instead, there is opposition specifically because it is a meaningful, though small change. A purely cosmetic change would be requiring all guns to be panted orange. PS: Most people don't have tools or mechanical know how, making 'simple' changes difficult.
        pc86 10y ago
        > If it where purely cosmetic people would not be fighting it. Simply not true. People fought the AWB because it was largely cosmetic (not entirely). Even those in support of the bill have said many of the banned items were cosmetic. > Soon after its passage in 1994, the gun industry made a mockery of the federal assault weapons ban, manufacturing 'post-ban' assault weapons with only slight, cosmetic differences from their banned counterparts. From the Violence Policy Center, a pro-gun control group. If a manufacturer can make strictly cosmetic changes to a weapon and have it be compliant, it's kind of hard to argue there was "meaningful change." That's not a loophole, that's banning a cosmetic feature and a manufacturer getting rid of that cosmetic feature.
        hnal943 10y ago
        Wrong. People are fighting it because it infringes on our constitutional rights to no benefit.
        dsfyu404ed 10y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre#Firearms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre... "Well shit dillon, they don't sell the Hi-Point-9 because it's banned, can I borrow an extra $50 so I can buy the carbine?" People intending to commit violence (on any scale) will find a way.
        Retric 10y ago
        Some people can pick locks, but not everyone can pick locks. Limiting dumb or lazy criminals is still useful.
- saiya-jin 10y ago
  Disclaimer - never owned a gun, in fact never shot a proper one. The problem, among others, is definition what is assault rifle and what not. Military laughs at this definition coming from politicians, you can perform deadly assault with pencil, bow or a brick. Is it ammo type? (ie 5.56 or .308 - but these are also common hunting calibers). Is it magazine capacity? - this can be cheated around super easily, especially if you prepare something nefarious. Full automats aren't sold anyway. Is it shape of the weapon? Now we left the land of facts and walking in the emotional wonderland. We can do better. It's like some voices here in Switzerland stating military home-held guns should be banned because some people commit suicide with them. Yeah, let's forget the core suicidal issue and remove the tool, that will surely stop them, right? Guns don't kill people (and don't get sentenced for that), people pull triggers and kill other people. But that's much harder to fix, so let's find some easy scapegoat, right?
  - JustSomeNobody 10y ago
    > ... you can perform deadly assault with pencil, bow or a brick. I'm not saying we shouldn't ban certain guns, but I don't think people realize that if someone is hellbent on killing, they'll use a hatchet or a machete if they can't get a gun. We'll have fewer deaths, but much, much nastier ones.
    - oblio 10y ago
      > We'll have fewer deaths, but much, much nastier ones. How do you quantify "nastier"? I couldn't really say. Meanwhile, I can quantify "fewer deaths". And I'd try to achieve that first.
      - JustSomeNobody 10y ago
        I don't think getting hacked to death would be as clean a kill, generally, as being shot. I've never witnessed either happen, so I could be wrong.
    - hnal943 10y ago
      We don't have to use our imagination about what other weapons people might use to commit terror - Bombs and vehicles are already popular, and no less deadly.
- jsight 10y ago
  An assault weapons ban is something that everyone agrees with, unless they know something about guns and have seen what the ban actually looks like. Once you see the list that is banned vs the list that is not banned, you realize that it usually isn't useful (at best) and is actively problematic for some people (at worst). Its the same problem as we have with a lot of laws in the US. It sounds like a good idea, but ultimately addresses the wrong problem.
  - mywittyname 10y ago
    Legislators have to take what they can get -- it's the nature of politics because you have two groups who disagree, going back and forth until they reach some solution the other guy hates, but will accept. Creating a department that has full authority to regulate a matter is the best way to get in effective laws. But then the laws get too effective and lobbyists have to then push to have their power reduced.
- GVIrish 10y ago
  > I do not see how banning assault weapons is a "crap" solution. Sure, other guns may still be available but at least it's something. This is exactly parent post's point. Something must be done, even if it is going to have little or no discernible effect on the problem. Banning assault weapons won't stop the next lunatic from committing a mass shooting because: A. You can easily kill dozens of people with handguns like the VT shooter did. B. Millions of assault weapons are already in circulation. Trying to confiscate those weapons would likely cause violence. Not to say that an assault weapons ban would not prevent some would-be shooters from getting a more powerful firearm, but it won't reduce the incidence of these shootings and you're still going to have a lot of people dead or injured if a shooter is forced to use a handgun. And that's assuming that mass shootings are the most important problem to be solved in terms of gun violence. Mass shootings still make up something like 1 or 2 percent of all gun homicides in the US. If we really care about people being killed by gun violence, we would focus our efforts on the vast majority of gun crime that is committed by people with prior violent felony convictions with illegal firearms. We would also take serious steps towards ending the drug war and all of the violence associated with the black market for drugs. Spending a ton of effort and political capital on getting a law passed that has very little effect on reducing gun homicides is silly. Because when a new AWB inevitably doesn't solve the problem, it's going to be all but impossible to pass another gun control law. If Hillary Clinton wins and forces through a new assault weapons ban she will have a tough time getting re-elected and Democrats will certainly lose Congress. Why not spend that political capital on something that will actually make a measurable difference.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    Also keep in mind that gun violence is down dramatically[0]. So the problem isn't really that gun violence is increasing but rather public knowledge of it has. [0]http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8740750 http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8740750
    - ythl 10y ago
      Guns are often political focus because they are high profile in the media, but there are lots of "silent killers" that are responsible for orders of magnitude more deaths per year that don't get high profile press coverage (medical malpractice, alcohol-related deaths, etc.). Politicians aren't looking out for us, they are just trying to prop themselves up.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  >we cannot provide free or extremely inexpensive mental health care, or somehow get 340mil Americans not to behave like jackals and crass narcissists all the time, to actually treat each other with respect, dignity, and compassion Not with that attitude you can't! >I do not see how banning assault weapons is a "crap" solution. Sometimes you can't address a problem with an easy band-aid, and pushing as hard as you can on the difficult part of the problem is the only effective option.
- TheCoelacanth 10y ago
  Why ban assault weapons (which are hardly ever used in shootings) instead of handguns (which are by far the most common type of gun used in shootings)?
Hannan 10y ago
>> I see this in politics a lot. So much so, it's even called that. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism
pjc50 10y ago
Congratulations on the instant derail! The "assault weapon" ban was a stupid compromise; the UK and Australia responded to mass shootings with near-total gun bans and thereby ended the phenomenon. America is simply not serious about gun violence, because it has a substantial pro-violence constituency. The acquittal of the Malheur occupiers is just the latest sign of that.
- Kephael 10y ago
  The UK had a mass shooting back in 2010, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings
  - phaemon 10y ago
    That's one, six years ago. Compare: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-america-gun-violence https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/...
    - Kephael 10y ago
      The UK didn't really have mass shooting incidents all that frequently even before their bans. The only two I can think of are Hungerford and Dunblane, which were spaced out over nine years. Additionally, the vast majority of the incidents on that page are not mass shootings but instead the political "four people shot" == mass shooting. The two largest "mass shootings" on that list were acts of terrorism, as we saw in France terrorists don't even need firearms to kill scores of people.
      - phaemon 10y ago
        > The UK didn't really have mass shooting incidents all that frequently even before their bans. There have been major restrictions on handgun use in the UK since 1968, well before Hungerford and Dunblane. > but instead the political "four people shot" == mass shooting. Are you pretending to be innumerate just to make a point? Or are you expecting me to believe you honestly can't subtract the two "acts of terrorism", just count the ones with more than five people killed, and still see that it's massively more than five times the UK number?
mtanski 10y ago
Here we go again.

by ythl 10y ago

plurinshael 10y ago

Given that we cannot provide free or extremely inexpensive mental health care, or somehow get 340mil Americans not to behave like jackals and crass narcissists all the time, to actually treat each other with respect, dignity, and compassion, I do not see how banning assault weapons is a "crap" solution. Sure, other guns may still be available but at least it's something.

pc86 10y ago
This is exactly what the GP is referring to. "We have to do something! This thing won't actually solve the problem but it lets me feel better because we did something, so let's do it! Pretty close to the definition of a crap solution.
- croon 10y ago
  It won't stop any one occurence from happening, but it likely will mitigate the damage on that occurence. It's hard to argue it's not at least a step in the right direction. But I agree it won't solve the problem at heart.
  - pc86 10y ago
    Not trying to get into an off-topic political discussion, but the AWB I'm familiar with is almost entirely cosmetic in nature and would not have prevented any of the tragedies that are often used to prop it up. There are many effective things that could be done to lessen gun violence without needlessly restricting something that has no connection to that violence. Barrel shrouds are cosmetic but they make something an assault weapon, as does a pistol grip on a shotgun (which makes it less accurate for 99.9% of users). Comprehensive, mandatory background checks? Of course. "This gun looks scary and is therefore dangerous?" Nonsense.
    - Retric 10y ago
      If it where purely cosmetic people would not be fighting it. Instead, there is opposition specifically because it is a meaningful, though small change. A purely cosmetic change would be requiring all guns to be panted orange. PS: Most people don't have tools or mechanical know how, making 'simple' changes difficult.
      - pc86 10y ago
        > If it where purely cosmetic people would not be fighting it. Simply not true. People fought the AWB because it was largely cosmetic (not entirely). Even those in support of the bill have said many of the banned items were cosmetic. > Soon after its passage in 1994, the gun industry made a mockery of the federal assault weapons ban, manufacturing 'post-ban' assault weapons with only slight, cosmetic differences from their banned counterparts. From the Violence Policy Center, a pro-gun control group. If a manufacturer can make strictly cosmetic changes to a weapon and have it be compliant, it's kind of hard to argue there was "meaningful change." That's not a loophole, that's banning a cosmetic feature and a manufacturer getting rid of that cosmetic feature.
      - hnal943 10y ago
        Wrong. People are fighting it because it infringes on our constitutional rights to no benefit.
      - dsfyu404ed 10y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre#Firearms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre... "Well shit dillon, they don't sell the Hi-Point-9 because it's banned, can I borrow an extra $50 so I can buy the carbine?" People intending to commit violence (on any scale) will find a way.
        Retric 10y ago
        Some people can pick locks, but not everyone can pick locks. Limiting dumb or lazy criminals is still useful.
saiya-jin 10y ago
Disclaimer - never owned a gun, in fact never shot a proper one. The problem, among others, is definition what is assault rifle and what not. Military laughs at this definition coming from politicians, you can perform deadly assault with pencil, bow or a brick. Is it ammo type? (ie 5.56 or .308 - but these are also common hunting calibers). Is it magazine capacity? - this can be cheated around super easily, especially if you prepare something nefarious. Full automats aren't sold anyway. Is it shape of the weapon? Now we left the land of facts and walking in the emotional wonderland. We can do better. It's like some voices here in Switzerland stating military home-held guns should be banned because some people commit suicide with them. Yeah, let's forget the core suicidal issue and remove the tool, that will surely stop them, right? Guns don't kill people (and don't get sentenced for that), people pull triggers and kill other people. But that's much harder to fix, so let's find some easy scapegoat, right?
- JustSomeNobody 10y ago
  > ... you can perform deadly assault with pencil, bow or a brick. I'm not saying we shouldn't ban certain guns, but I don't think people realize that if someone is hellbent on killing, they'll use a hatchet or a machete if they can't get a gun. We'll have fewer deaths, but much, much nastier ones.
  - oblio 10y ago
    > We'll have fewer deaths, but much, much nastier ones. How do you quantify "nastier"? I couldn't really say. Meanwhile, I can quantify "fewer deaths". And I'd try to achieve that first.
    - JustSomeNobody 10y ago
      I don't think getting hacked to death would be as clean a kill, generally, as being shot. I've never witnessed either happen, so I could be wrong.
  - hnal943 10y ago
    We don't have to use our imagination about what other weapons people might use to commit terror - Bombs and vehicles are already popular, and no less deadly.
jsight 10y ago
An assault weapons ban is something that everyone agrees with, unless they know something about guns and have seen what the ban actually looks like. Once you see the list that is banned vs the list that is not banned, you realize that it usually isn't useful (at best) and is actively problematic for some people (at worst). Its the same problem as we have with a lot of laws in the US. It sounds like a good idea, but ultimately addresses the wrong problem.
- mywittyname 10y ago
  Legislators have to take what they can get -- it's the nature of politics because you have two groups who disagree, going back and forth until they reach some solution the other guy hates, but will accept. Creating a department that has full authority to regulate a matter is the best way to get in effective laws. But then the laws get too effective and lobbyists have to then push to have their power reduced.
GVIrish 10y ago
> I do not see how banning assault weapons is a "crap" solution. Sure, other guns may still be available but at least it's something. This is exactly parent post's point. Something must be done, even if it is going to have little or no discernible effect on the problem. Banning assault weapons won't stop the next lunatic from committing a mass shooting because: A. You can easily kill dozens of people with handguns like the VT shooter did. B. Millions of assault weapons are already in circulation. Trying to confiscate those weapons would likely cause violence. Not to say that an assault weapons ban would not prevent some would-be shooters from getting a more powerful firearm, but it won't reduce the incidence of these shootings and you're still going to have a lot of people dead or injured if a shooter is forced to use a handgun. And that's assuming that mass shootings are the most important problem to be solved in terms of gun violence. Mass shootings still make up something like 1 or 2 percent of all gun homicides in the US. If we really care about people being killed by gun violence, we would focus our efforts on the vast majority of gun crime that is committed by people with prior violent felony convictions with illegal firearms. We would also take serious steps towards ending the drug war and all of the violence associated with the black market for drugs. Spending a ton of effort and political capital on getting a law passed that has very little effect on reducing gun homicides is silly. Because when a new AWB inevitably doesn't solve the problem, it's going to be all but impossible to pass another gun control law. If Hillary Clinton wins and forces through a new assault weapons ban she will have a tough time getting re-elected and Democrats will certainly lose Congress. Why not spend that political capital on something that will actually make a measurable difference.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  Also keep in mind that gun violence is down dramatically[0]. So the problem isn't really that gun violence is increasing but rather public knowledge of it has. [0]http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8740750 http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8740750
  - ythl 10y ago
    Guns are often political focus because they are high profile in the media, but there are lots of "silent killers" that are responsible for orders of magnitude more deaths per year that don't get high profile press coverage (medical malpractice, alcohol-related deaths, etc.). Politicians aren't looking out for us, they are just trying to prop themselves up.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>we cannot provide free or extremely inexpensive mental health care, or somehow get 340mil Americans not to behave like jackals and crass narcissists all the time, to actually treat each other with respect, dignity, and compassion Not with that attitude you can't! >I do not see how banning assault weapons is a "crap" solution. Sometimes you can't address a problem with an easy band-aid, and pushing as hard as you can on the difficult part of the problem is the only effective option.
TheCoelacanth 10y ago
Why ban assault weapons (which are hardly ever used in shootings) instead of handguns (which are by far the most common type of gun used in shootings)?

Hannan 10y ago

>> I see this in politics a lot. So much so, it's even called that. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism

pjc50 10y ago

Congratulations on the instant derail! The "assault weapon" ban was a stupid compromise; the UK and Australia responded to mass shootings with near-total gun bans and thereby ended the phenomenon. America is simply not serious about gun violence, because it has a substantial pro-violence constituency. The acquittal of the Malheur occupiers is just the latest sign of that.

Kephael 10y ago
The UK had a mass shooting back in 2010, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings
- phaemon 10y ago
  That's one, six years ago. Compare: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-america-gun-violence https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/...
  - Kephael 10y ago
    The UK didn't really have mass shooting incidents all that frequently even before their bans. The only two I can think of are Hungerford and Dunblane, which were spaced out over nine years. Additionally, the vast majority of the incidents on that page are not mass shootings but instead the political "four people shot" == mass shooting. The two largest "mass shootings" on that list were acts of terrorism, as we saw in France terrorists don't even need firearms to kill scores of people.
    - phaemon 10y ago
      > The UK didn't really have mass shooting incidents all that frequently even before their bans. There have been major restrictions on handgun use in the UK since 1968, well before Hungerford and Dunblane. > but instead the political "four people shot" == mass shooting. Are you pretending to be innumerate just to make a point? Or are you expecting me to believe you honestly can't subtract the two "acts of terrorism", just count the ones with more than five people killed, and still see that it's massively more than five times the UK number?

mtanski 10y ago

Here we go again.