6 ms·

> with the return of some simple political will Gun control is a "third rail" in many political jurisdictions in the USA. Many Americans will vote against any

by sk5t 7y ago

> with the return of some simple political will Gun control is a "third rail" in many political jurisdictions in the USA. Many Americans will vote against any agent who would disarm them; those voters are unlikely to see disarming to diminish the (very roughly) ~0.000001% chance of death by mass shooting as a sensible--or even Constitutional--trade.

untog 7y ago
85% of the population approves of increased background checks for gun owners. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing debate.
- basementcat 7y ago
  It is not clear if background checks can prevent this type of event.
  - untog 7y ago
    It definitely can in many. Just because it doesn't work every time doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.
  - armada651 7y ago
    How about a background check and a mental check? Gun owners always call it a mental health crisis, so let's make sure all new gun owners are vetted and have to pass a psychological exam.
    - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
      > How about a background check and a mental check? That would pretty much guarantee that people who need mental health services would deliberately avoid getting it to prevent it from showing up on their records, e.g. a security guard who needs to carry a firearm for their job.
      - basementcat 7y ago
        It gets worse. If you’re flagged with a mental illness, most states will yank your professional license (you lose your job and possible primary income). Our society has an economic incentive to underreport mental illness.
      - armada651 7y ago
        It would not be optional to do the mental exam.
        ThrowawayR2 7y ago
        > It would not be optional to do the mental exam. Uh, what do you think a psychiatric exam is? There's no crazy-o-meter that they stick into an orifice to objectively determine whether you're mentally ill or not. You simply get asked a series of questions which you can reply to in any way you like.
    - umvi 7y ago
      How do you define a "mental check"? "socially awkward people aren't allowed to have guns" as a policy would be a flagrant violation of a constitutional right. The scary thing is that mentally ill people can intentionally mask their illness in order to pass exams.
    - eswat 7y ago
      Replying to the other comments under this reply: in Canada we check for past history of mental illness but don’t flag gun license applicants just because of that. They need to have a history of being treated due to illness that could lead to violence.
    - sk5t 7y ago
      In the interests of keeping things pari passu, how about implementing mental screenings as part of voter registration as well?
- s_m_t 7y ago
  In the abstract, yes, virtually everyone agrees with "wouldn't it be great if bad people couldn't get guns". The problem is the moment it becomes specific a lot of the support is lost.
  - jacobolus 7y ago
    People agree with the specifics too, until the media outlets they watch start pumping out misinformation about whatever the specific proposal says. After a few weeks of watching their favorite pundits bloviate, many people’s “personal preferences” change.
  - ajross 7y ago
    Seems like exactly the opposite is true. Where specific bills have reached the floor, they've passed. The tactics of the opposition are to use procedural control and veto power to prevent these from becoming laws. The assault weapons ban of 1994 was a successful law, and would have removed access to almost all the weapons used in the recent attacks. It had a sunset provision, and expired in 2004. But it passed, and it worked. It's a common founding myth among gun rights people that "The American People" are pro-gun, but it's just not really true. It's a particular driving issue for a particular subset of the republican base, and beyond that opinions aren't as strong, but are broadly pro-gun-control.
    - s_m_t 7y ago
      I was under the impression that the 1994 ban targeted specific models of firearm and silly features like pistol grips, flash suppressors, and bayonets (I might be confusing this with a california ban). The whole "Assault weapon" thing is considered something of a joke to a lot of firearm enthusiasts. For example, the ruger mini 14 wasn't legally considered an "Assault weapon" (but would be considered one if it had a collapsible stock? might be a myth idk this is what some people claim) despite it being a well regarded semi-automatic rifle which was also used in an infamous shootout with the fbi to devestating effect.
      - ajross 7y ago
- sk5t 7y ago
  "Gun people" might be skeptical of the 85% number because there are already background checks, with which "non-gun people" by definition are unfamiliar. Is there something preventing the existing system from becoming better naturally (I honestly don't know the answer here)? I would hazard to guess the 15% of dissenters to be wary of the survey-takers' motives, the particulars of how background checks might be governmentally instrumented to be better, stuff like that. Consider that the prior administration floated the idea of barring folks on the no-fly list from possessing guns, which seems an awfully bureaucratically unconstitutional thing after even slight consideration.
jjoonathan 7y ago
Right, and they see their weapons as insurance against being the victims of a socialist famine like the ones that killed 100 million people last century. If you want to viscerally understand their viewpoint, call to mind the reaction that you have when someone in the conservative camp goes "Look, it's snowing, so much for global warming!" -- and then substitute "snowing" for "school shooting" and "global warming" for "politically-induced mass starvation." I don't buy this argument, but only because I don't think armed resistance would be effective, and there's a lot that I know I don't know on that front. What I don't believe is that this tradeoff has an obvious undebatable answer.
- sk5t 7y ago
  I didn't mean to imply any particular motive to the pro-gun / pro-2A camp. Like, I personally tend to think most live in somewhat rural areas, and value firearms as tools for self-defense and deterrence--in areas where there is zilch, zero chance one could scream or even effectively telephone for help from the police or a neighbor--plus hunting, protecting livestock, and the like. Surely there are some Americans who dream of resisting government oppression, but surely even the able-minded among them understand the pure futility, plus the crushing societal and economic collapse that would come with it.
abraae 7y ago
That is very well put, far from the rabid madness that usually seems to be conjured up when gun control is discussed. I spent some time studying it to spot the weak point. I guess it is the phrase "to disarm them", which is somewhat provocative, since no-one would seriously advocate taking away all guns. Even Japan, with just 5% of the gun violence of the US, allows some citizens to have some guns. Another issue is with your stated statistic of death via mass shooting. This obviously ignores maimings and other non-deaths, and also deaths from guns in non-mass events, such as burglaries, accidents. But most of all, it ignores the psychological impact from the threat of gun violence. What happens to a young child's mind from having to participate in active shooter drills? From having adults explain to them that this is a real threat, and that they better be ready for it? No child should have to carry that burden. And maybe that leads back to some agreement with your point. If the actual danger from guns is as low as you say, then why have these drills at all?
- sk5t 7y ago
  > no-one would seriously advocate taking away all guns While I believe this to be true, virtually any sort of "turn in some of your guns" event in the USA would... not be viewed with any nuance at all. Even machine guns were more-or-less exempt from turn-in, provided they were registered by a certain time. Moreover there are already very, very many semi-automatic pistols, revolvers, rifles, and shotguns in circulation--it's not as if a lot of folks have a bolt-action 22 cal rifle and just a few have semi-automatics--the sort of guns that can be fired and reloaded somewhat rapidly, that's what we've got. Setting aside the fact that a rifle is more powerful and aim-able, but harder to conceal, compared to a pistol, I'm not sure what characteristic of a "bad" gun the American government could successfully put forth. All that said--from whom would you propose to confiscate what guns? > Another issue is with your stated statistic of death via mass shooting. This obviously ignores maimings and other non-deaths, and also deaths from guns in non-mass events, such as burglaries, accidents. Well, agreed! Mass shootings and terror attacks inflict many fewer casualties on the American population compared to robberies, gang and drug violence, alcohol and smoking, fatty foods, traffic accidents and DUI, swimming pools, etc. However, it does not seem to me that these other perils are used to buttress the case for banning the instruments of such trouble. I don't mean to be glib, and indeed it is hard to imagine a bad actor using an undoctored swimming pool against innocents, but it does seem to be the case that the electorate lacks the will to stamp out certain risks. And this lack of will is not really related to the measurable impact of the problem. > What happens to a young child's mind from having to participate in active shooter drills? We could reflect on the schoolhouse duck-and-cover drills for nuclear war in the 1950s and 1960s--like, isn't contemplating nuclear annihilation and nuclear winter much more terrifying and existentially dreadful than locking the classroom door? Maybe it isn't a good idea to traumatize children with visions of a terrible but statistically very remote fate. On the other hand, local police and school districts must be seen to be doing something, so maybe it is practically unavoidable.

by sk5t 7y ago

untog 7y ago

85% of the population approves of increased background checks for gun owners. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing debate.

basementcat 7y ago
It is not clear if background checks can prevent this type of event.
- untog 7y ago
  It definitely can in many. Just because it doesn't work every time doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.
- armada651 7y ago
  How about a background check and a mental check? Gun owners always call it a mental health crisis, so let's make sure all new gun owners are vetted and have to pass a psychological exam.
  - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
    > How about a background check and a mental check? That would pretty much guarantee that people who need mental health services would deliberately avoid getting it to prevent it from showing up on their records, e.g. a security guard who needs to carry a firearm for their job.
    - basementcat 7y ago
      It gets worse. If you’re flagged with a mental illness, most states will yank your professional license (you lose your job and possible primary income). Our society has an economic incentive to underreport mental illness.
    - armada651 7y ago
      It would not be optional to do the mental exam.
      - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
        > It would not be optional to do the mental exam. Uh, what do you think a psychiatric exam is? There's no crazy-o-meter that they stick into an orifice to objectively determine whether you're mentally ill or not. You simply get asked a series of questions which you can reply to in any way you like.
  - umvi 7y ago
    How do you define a "mental check"? "socially awkward people aren't allowed to have guns" as a policy would be a flagrant violation of a constitutional right. The scary thing is that mentally ill people can intentionally mask their illness in order to pass exams.
  - eswat 7y ago
    Replying to the other comments under this reply: in Canada we check for past history of mental illness but don’t flag gun license applicants just because of that. They need to have a history of being treated due to illness that could lead to violence.
  - sk5t 7y ago
    In the interests of keeping things pari passu, how about implementing mental screenings as part of voter registration as well?
s_m_t 7y ago
In the abstract, yes, virtually everyone agrees with "wouldn't it be great if bad people couldn't get guns". The problem is the moment it becomes specific a lot of the support is lost.
- jacobolus 7y ago
  People agree with the specifics too, until the media outlets they watch start pumping out misinformation about whatever the specific proposal says. After a few weeks of watching their favorite pundits bloviate, many people’s “personal preferences” change.
- ajross 7y ago
  Seems like exactly the opposite is true. Where specific bills have reached the floor, they've passed. The tactics of the opposition are to use procedural control and veto power to prevent these from becoming laws. The assault weapons ban of 1994 was a successful law, and would have removed access to almost all the weapons used in the recent attacks. It had a sunset provision, and expired in 2004. But it passed, and it worked. It's a common founding myth among gun rights people that "The American People" are pro-gun, but it's just not really true. It's a particular driving issue for a particular subset of the republican base, and beyond that opinions aren't as strong, but are broadly pro-gun-control.
  - s_m_t 7y ago
    I was under the impression that the 1994 ban targeted specific models of firearm and silly features like pistol grips, flash suppressors, and bayonets (I might be confusing this with a california ban). The whole "Assault weapon" thing is considered something of a joke to a lot of firearm enthusiasts. For example, the ruger mini 14 wasn't legally considered an "Assault weapon" (but would be considered one if it had a collapsible stock? might be a myth idk this is what some people claim) despite it being a well regarded semi-automatic rifle which was also used in an infamous shootout with the fbi to devestating effect.
    - ajross 7y ago
sk5t 7y ago
"Gun people" might be skeptical of the 85% number because there are already background checks, with which "non-gun people" by definition are unfamiliar. Is there something preventing the existing system from becoming better naturally (I honestly don't know the answer here)? I would hazard to guess the 15% of dissenters to be wary of the survey-takers' motives, the particulars of how background checks might be governmentally instrumented to be better, stuff like that. Consider that the prior administration floated the idea of barring folks on the no-fly list from possessing guns, which seems an awfully bureaucratically unconstitutional thing after even slight consideration.

jjoonathan 7y ago

Right, and they see their weapons as insurance against being the victims of a socialist famine like the ones that killed 100 million people last century. If you want to viscerally understand their viewpoint, call to mind the reaction that you have when someone in the conservative camp goes "Look, it's snowing, so much for global warming!" -- and then substitute "snowing" for "school shooting" and "global warming" for "politically-induced mass starvation." I don't buy this argument, but only because I don't think armed resistance would be effective, and there's a lot that I know I don't know on that front. What I don't believe is that this tradeoff has an obvious undebatable answer.

sk5t 7y ago
I didn't mean to imply any particular motive to the pro-gun / pro-2A camp. Like, I personally tend to think most live in somewhat rural areas, and value firearms as tools for self-defense and deterrence--in areas where there is zilch, zero chance one could scream or even effectively telephone for help from the police or a neighbor--plus hunting, protecting livestock, and the like. Surely there are some Americans who dream of resisting government oppression, but surely even the able-minded among them understand the pure futility, plus the crushing societal and economic collapse that would come with it.

abraae 7y ago

That is very well put, far from the rabid madness that usually seems to be conjured up when gun control is discussed. I spent some time studying it to spot the weak point. I guess it is the phrase "to disarm them", which is somewhat provocative, since no-one would seriously advocate taking away all guns. Even Japan, with just 5% of the gun violence of the US, allows some citizens to have some guns. Another issue is with your stated statistic of death via mass shooting. This obviously ignores maimings and other non-deaths, and also deaths from guns in non-mass events, such as burglaries, accidents. But most of all, it ignores the psychological impact from the threat of gun violence. What happens to a young child's mind from having to participate in active shooter drills? From having adults explain to them that this is a real threat, and that they better be ready for it? No child should have to carry that burden. And maybe that leads back to some agreement with your point. If the actual danger from guns is as low as you say, then why have these drills at all?

sk5t 7y ago
> no-one would seriously advocate taking away all guns While I believe this to be true, virtually any sort of "turn in some of your guns" event in the USA would... not be viewed with any nuance at all. Even machine guns were more-or-less exempt from turn-in, provided they were registered by a certain time. Moreover there are already very, very many semi-automatic pistols, revolvers, rifles, and shotguns in circulation--it's not as if a lot of folks have a bolt-action 22 cal rifle and just a few have semi-automatics--the sort of guns that can be fired and reloaded somewhat rapidly, that's what we've got. Setting aside the fact that a rifle is more powerful and aim-able, but harder to conceal, compared to a pistol, I'm not sure what characteristic of a "bad" gun the American government could successfully put forth. All that said--from whom would you propose to confiscate what guns? > Another issue is with your stated statistic of death via mass shooting. This obviously ignores maimings and other non-deaths, and also deaths from guns in non-mass events, such as burglaries, accidents. Well, agreed! Mass shootings and terror attacks inflict many fewer casualties on the American population compared to robberies, gang and drug violence, alcohol and smoking, fatty foods, traffic accidents and DUI, swimming pools, etc. However, it does not seem to me that these other perils are used to buttress the case for banning the instruments of such trouble. I don't mean to be glib, and indeed it is hard to imagine a bad actor using an undoctored swimming pool against innocents, but it does seem to be the case that the electorate lacks the will to stamp out certain risks. And this lack of will is not really related to the measurable impact of the problem. > What happens to a young child's mind from having to participate in active shooter drills? We could reflect on the schoolhouse duck-and-cover drills for nuclear war in the 1950s and 1960s--like, isn't contemplating nuclear annihilation and nuclear winter much more terrifying and existentially dreadful than locking the classroom door? Maybe it isn't a good idea to traumatize children with visions of a terrible but statistically very remote fate. On the other hand, local police and school districts must be seen to be doing something, so maybe it is practically unavoidable.