6 ms·

On the contrary, its lazy to assume that gun control won't fix the issue, because it implicitly assumes the massive difference between the US and other nations

On the contrary, its lazy to assume that gun control won't fix the issue, because it implicitly assumes the massive difference between the US and other nations in violent murders is due to some other, vague, unexplained societal malady that somehow is only a problem in the US and not in other first world countries. Occam's razor would assume that the unique extent to which firearms are readily available in the US probably has a major connection to the unique extent to which mass shootings and gun violence occurs. Even if you were to make the argument that the underlying issues, whatever those may be, would persist, it is absolutely progress to have mass murderers be forced to utilize something like a knife than head on down the street and pick up an automatic/semi-automatic weapon.

throw0101a 7y ago
A point David Frum makes in his latest column: > There is one developed country—and only one—in which it is not only legal, but easy and convenient, to amass a private arsenal of mass slaughter. That country also happens to be the one—and the only one—regularly afflicted by mass slaughters perpetrated by aggrieved individuals. > You would not think that this is a complicated problem to puzzle out. Yet even as the casualties from gunfire mount, Americans express befuddlement, and compete to devise ever more far-fetched answers. * https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/guns-are-american-exception/595450/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/guns-are-a... A similar column from a few years ago: > A village has been built in the deepest gully of a floodplain. > At regular intervals, flash floods wipe away houses, killing all inside. Less dramatic—but more lethal—is the steady toll as individual villagers slip and drown in the marshes around them. > After especially deadly events, the villagers solemnly discuss what they might do to protect themselves. Perhaps they might raise their homes on stilts? But a powerful faction among the villagers is always at hand to explain why these ideas won’t work. “No law can keep our village safe! The answer is that our people must learn to be better swimmers - and oh by the way, you said ‘stilts’ when the proper term is ‘piles,’ so why should anybody listen to you?” * https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/the-real-common-sense-tactics-the-debate-is-missing/542229/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/the-rea...
- leereeves 7y ago
  America is not a violent country, it's about average, and far better than our neighbors to the south. And when we make comparisons with Europe, we should remember that violence in Europe is rising, while violence in the US is declining. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/03/5-facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/03/5-facts-abo... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-crime-idUSKBN1ES16J https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-c... https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-bombings-grenade-attacks-violent-reality-undoing-peaceful-self-image-law-and-order/ https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-bombings-grenade-atta...
  - throw0101a 7y ago
    > America is not a violent country, The general crime rate in the US is not too different from the crime rate in most other developed countries; see point seven: * https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/u... However there's a lot more violent crime; see point one (ibid). > it's about average, and far better than our neighbors to the south. And yet as someone who lives in Canada, your neighbour to the north, we have a lot less gun crime. The difference is that we have good social services and decent filters on gun ownership. I don't know all the nitty-gritty details, but it seems that Canada's laws are roughly in line with what Massachusetts has: * https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-control-laws-licenses https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-co... There will always probably be mass shootings: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Toronto_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Toronto_shooting But I think adding some filters or speed bumps to ownership (and especially CCW) will weed out the hot heads and incompetents that cause so much low-level carnage: * https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_/status/1158207870808264704 https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_/status/11582078708082647... * https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_/status/1157550990343712770 https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_/status/11575509903437127... * https://twitter.com/well_regulated_ https://twitter.com/well_regulated_
    - leereeves 7y ago
TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
Only the US has a religious mythology of personal gun use. Guns aren't just weapons, they're practically symbols of inspired personal expression. So it's not just easy access to guns. It's the surrounding culture of gun play, gun heroism, gun rhetoric, gun rights, gun "freedom", gun permissiveness, guns-make-you-a-real-person-who-matters - and so on. Other countries don't have anything like the same culture to anything like the same extent. Which is why you can have equivalent levels of gun ownership without the same problems.
- lapnitnelav 7y ago
  I remember seeing a picture of a somewhat old gun (WW2 era) repainted in bright colours and the amount of hate the poster got from people left and right. This doesn't fit in the 'a gun is a tool' mindset, it's fetishism, pure and simple.
  - pnutjam 7y ago
    That's dangerous because gun owners have convinced people their kids are safe if they play with toy guns that don't look like real guns. They aren't, but it's a convenient fiction.
- bart_spoon 7y ago
  I'm not sure this is something we can assume, as I don't think there is a country with anywhere close to the same levels of gun ownership as the US.
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  Agreed. The US was probably the first country to rely on personal arms ownership to establish their independence. Its important to Americans.
  - Frondo 7y ago
    It's important to Americans because it's been sold to us as a fictitious part of a national identity. The gun industry has very successfully crafted this narrative, to the point where so many people take it for granted now, but it wasn't always this way; this is a thing that developed in (depending on age) some of our lifetimes. Here's a book that takes a closer look at how guns took on this sort of mythic role -- more special than other tools and appliances -- in American identity: https://www.pamelahaag.com/books/gunning-of-america/ https://www.pamelahaag.com/books/gunning-of-america/
CapricornNoble 7y ago
>>>Occam's razor would assume that the unique extent to which firearms are readily available in the US probably has a major connection to the unique extent to which mass shootings and gun violence occurs. Well let's look at just the United States, over time, rather than the US compared to other countries. In the US, a proliferation of firearms has been a constant throughout our history. But it is only recently (really starting with Columbine) that we've had REGULAR outbursts, almost always by men under 30. I would hypothesize that the elephants in the room are a)prescription psychotropic drugs and their side-effects b)constant negative media about males/toxic masculinity c)overall ineffective child-rearing practices and extended adolescence, some of which stems from a reduction in two-parent households. These are vague partly because so few people will take a deep dive into these subjects when so much money flows from these influences (pharmaceuticals, media, etc...). But why aren't we looking at the variables, instead of the constant? >>>it is absolutely progress to have mass murderers be forced to utilize something like a knife than head on down the street and pick up an automatic/semi-automatic weapon. 1. You can't "head on down the street" and pick up an automatic weapon in the US. You need a Federal Firearms License for that. And historically, FFL holders are some of the most law-abiding citizens in the country. Even if there were a ban on semi-auto weapons, the market would adapt. I've already brainstormed on how to optimize a bolt-action rifle for rapid, sustained fire and I'm not even a firearms designer. 2. Tightening the gun proliferation sounds great...in theory. How do you actually accomplish it in practice? There are 300 million+ firearms spread across the country in about 40% of households. This is a land area greater than that occupied by the Germans on the Eastern Front, with a greater number of potential "partisans", and the Germans never even came CLOSE to securing their rear areas. That anyone expects widespread gun confiscations to NOT turn into a bloodbath is naive IMO, and if the objective is saving lives than it would also be counter-productive. 3. Maybe the mass murders will switch to homemade explosives instead of knives, which would be a significantly WORSE outcome? Ever think of that? Maybe they'll get guidance from jihadis. Hell, explosives already gave us one of the worst school massacres in American history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

throw0101a 7y ago

A point David Frum makes in his latest column: > There is one developed country—and only one—in which it is not only legal, but easy and convenient, to amass a private arsenal of mass slaughter. That country also happens to be the one—and the only one—regularly afflicted by mass slaughters perpetrated by aggrieved individuals. > You would not think that this is a complicated problem to puzzle out. Yet even as the casualties from gunfire mount, Americans express befuddlement, and compete to devise ever more far-fetched answers. * https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/guns-are-american-exception/595450/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/guns-are-a... A similar column from a few years ago: > A village has been built in the deepest gully of a floodplain. > At regular intervals, flash floods wipe away houses, killing all inside. Less dramatic—but more lethal—is the steady toll as individual villagers slip and drown in the marshes around them. > After especially deadly events, the villagers solemnly discuss what they might do to protect themselves. Perhaps they might raise their homes on stilts? But a powerful faction among the villagers is always at hand to explain why these ideas won’t work. “No law can keep our village safe! The answer is that our people must learn to be better swimmers - and oh by the way, you said ‘stilts’ when the proper term is ‘piles,’ so why should anybody listen to you?” * https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/the-real-common-sense-tactics-the-debate-is-missing/542229/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/the-rea...

leereeves 7y ago
America is not a violent country, it's about average, and far better than our neighbors to the south. And when we make comparisons with Europe, we should remember that violence in Europe is rising, while violence in the US is declining. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/03/5-facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/03/5-facts-abo... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-crime-idUSKBN1ES16J https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-c... https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-bombings-grenade-attacks-violent-reality-undoing-peaceful-self-image-law-and-order/ https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-bombings-grenade-atta...
- throw0101a 7y ago
  > America is not a violent country, The general crime rate in the US is not too different from the crime rate in most other developed countries; see point seven: * https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/u... However there's a lot more violent crime; see point one (ibid). > it's about average, and far better than our neighbors to the south. And yet as someone who lives in Canada, your neighbour to the north, we have a lot less gun crime. The difference is that we have good social services and decent filters on gun ownership. I don't know all the nitty-gritty details, but it seems that Canada's laws are roughly in line with what Massachusetts has: * https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-control-laws-licenses https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-co... There will always probably be mass shootings: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Toronto_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Toronto_shooting But I think adding some filters or speed bumps to ownership (and especially CCW) will weed out the hot heads and incompetents that cause so much low-level carnage: * https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_/status/1158207870808264704 https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_/status/11582078708082647... * https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_/status/1157550990343712770 https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_/status/11575509903437127... * https://twitter.com/well_regulated_ https://twitter.com/well_regulated_
  - leereeves 7y ago

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago

Only the US has a religious mythology of personal gun use. Guns aren't just weapons, they're practically symbols of inspired personal expression. So it's not just easy access to guns. It's the surrounding culture of gun play, gun heroism, gun rhetoric, gun rights, gun "freedom", gun permissiveness, guns-make-you-a-real-person-who-matters - and so on. Other countries don't have anything like the same culture to anything like the same extent. Which is why you can have equivalent levels of gun ownership without the same problems.

lapnitnelav 7y ago
I remember seeing a picture of a somewhat old gun (WW2 era) repainted in bright colours and the amount of hate the poster got from people left and right. This doesn't fit in the 'a gun is a tool' mindset, it's fetishism, pure and simple.
- pnutjam 7y ago
  That's dangerous because gun owners have convinced people their kids are safe if they play with toy guns that don't look like real guns. They aren't, but it's a convenient fiction.
bart_spoon 7y ago
I'm not sure this is something we can assume, as I don't think there is a country with anywhere close to the same levels of gun ownership as the US.
Fjolsvith 7y ago
Agreed. The US was probably the first country to rely on personal arms ownership to establish their independence. Its important to Americans.
- Frondo 7y ago
  It's important to Americans because it's been sold to us as a fictitious part of a national identity. The gun industry has very successfully crafted this narrative, to the point where so many people take it for granted now, but it wasn't always this way; this is a thing that developed in (depending on age) some of our lifetimes. Here's a book that takes a closer look at how guns took on this sort of mythic role -- more special than other tools and appliances -- in American identity: https://www.pamelahaag.com/books/gunning-of-america/ https://www.pamelahaag.com/books/gunning-of-america/

CapricornNoble 7y ago

>>>Occam's razor would assume that the unique extent to which firearms are readily available in the US probably has a major connection to the unique extent to which mass shootings and gun violence occurs. Well let's look at just the United States, over time, rather than the US compared to other countries. In the US, a proliferation of firearms has been a constant throughout our history. But it is only recently (really starting with Columbine) that we've had REGULAR outbursts, almost always by men under 30. I would hypothesize that the elephants in the room are a)prescription psychotropic drugs and their side-effects b)constant negative media about males/toxic masculinity c)overall ineffective child-rearing practices and extended adolescence, some of which stems from a reduction in two-parent households. These are vague partly because so few people will take a deep dive into these subjects when so much money flows from these influences (pharmaceuticals, media, etc...). But why aren't we looking at the variables, instead of the constant? >>>it is absolutely progress to have mass murderers be forced to utilize something like a knife than head on down the street and pick up an automatic/semi-automatic weapon. 1. You can't "head on down the street" and pick up an automatic weapon in the US. You need a Federal Firearms License for that. And historically, FFL holders are some of the most law-abiding citizens in the country. Even if there were a ban on semi-auto weapons, the market would adapt. I've already brainstormed on how to optimize a bolt-action rifle for rapid, sustained fire and I'm not even a firearms designer. 2. Tightening the gun proliferation sounds great...in theory. How do you actually accomplish it in practice? There are 300 million+ firearms spread across the country in about 40% of households. This is a land area greater than that occupied by the Germans on the Eastern Front, with a greater number of potential "partisans", and the Germans never even came CLOSE to securing their rear areas. That anyone expects widespread gun confiscations to NOT turn into a bloodbath is naive IMO, and if the objective is saving lives than it would also be counter-productive. 3. Maybe the mass murders will switch to homemade explosives instead of knives, which would be a significantly WORSE outcome? Ever think of that? Maybe they'll get guidance from jihadis. Hell, explosives already gave us one of the worst school massacres in American history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster