4 ms·

What I'd like to hear from Second Amendment advocates, is what their solution is to the frequency of gun violence in the USA. Is it actually a problem you think

by simonh 5y ago

What I'd like to hear from Second Amendment advocates, is what their solution is to the frequency of gun violence in the USA. Is it actually a problem you think needs tackling, or is the current situation acceptable to you? If it's not acceptable, what's the path to improve things and what remedies would you support? I understand that you value this right, and yes it is in your constitution. Is that the end of the discussion though? After all, the constitution has been amended many times. It's not an absolute.

injb 5y ago
While we're at it, if you support the 1st amendment, what solution do you have in store for threats, incitement, defamation etc? What about the 4th amendment - presumably you have a solution to people hiding evidence of crimes right? And what's your solution to criminals refusing to consent to interviews with the police? Are you prepared to relinquish these rights if we don't find your solutions adequate?
- simonh 5y ago
  Those are of course serious issues that any society has to work out. However the existence of those issues don't in any way detract from the existence and seriousness of this one, or provide any reason to neglect it.
  - injb 5y ago
    I'm not suggesting that these things justify neglecting it. What I'm responding to is your comment treating Second Amendment advocates as a class with respect to crime. Why should they, as a group, have any particular solution or perspective on this problem, more than anyone else? Maybe this isn't your attitude, and I'm not trying to misrepresent you here, but it's very common for people to expect a level of justification from 2A advocates that would seem absurd and unfair when applied to any other personal right (hence my examples). The implication is that the violence is somehow derived from right to own guns, and therefore people who fight to retain that right have a responsibility to come up with a solution.
    - simonh 5y ago
      Well, from my perspective rights come with responsibilities. If you want to have a right, then there's an obligation there to justify any cost that might have to society. I believe in free speech, including the right of others to say things that I find offensive. I think I can provide arguments that justify that right. I can also give a good account of the reasonable limits that there should be on free speech such as slander, incitement to violence, criminal deception and so on. Unrestrained 'free speech' could be weaponised for malicious ends, so it's really important to get the reasonable constraints and limitations right. If you want to have a right to bear arms, I think the same applies to firearms ownership and use. Personally I think that the current levels of gun violence in the US indicate that it is not under reasonable constraints of that kind. What do you think, is the current level of gun violence in the US acceptable to you, and if not what do you think from the perspective of a 2nd amendment advocate, is the best way to address it?
      - injb 5y ago
        I don't think I can answer your question because as I explained, I don't agree with the premise. > Well, from my perspective rights come with responsibilities It's never quite clear to me what people mean by this. We have responsibilities, certainly. And we have rights. But I don't understand in what sense they are supposed to be linked, as though they were two sides of the same coin. For example, in the UK they don't have anything equivalent to the US 1st Amendment. What responsibilities are they absolved of as a consequence of that? > If you want to have a right, then there's an obligation there to justify any cost that might have to society. Justification is a separate question from responsibility. But why must I justify the exercise of the right first? Why shouldn't you justify your right to restrain me first? It's an important question because we could argue forever about what the costs may or may not be and never reach an agreement. Therefore the status quo has enormous weight. In many places, it's not clear where the burden of justification lies for a given right. The point of the US Bill of Rights was to make this crystal clear for certain issues. I think we disagree on multiple levels here. Firstly, there's the question of what causes the extreme levels of violent crime in a tiny minority of US neighborhoods. You obviously think there's some kind of causal link with the 2nd Amendment. I don't. But secondly, there's the question of what should happen when we don't agree on something like this. You naturally want the system to default to your side. In many countries, on many issues, that's exactly how it is - freedom has to be justified. This is what makes the US different: restraint has to be justified, at least on the short list of issues that were lucky enough to make the cut into the Bill of Rights.
inglor_cz 5y ago
IANAA (I Am Not An American), but the extreme variation in geography of American violence cries for local remedies. And I am not sure whether the mere existence of weapons there is a reason to have a crime hotspot. Madmen aside, people generally kill other people for some reasons. These reasons are closer to the root causes that need attention. Unfortunately the discussion is poisoned by political orthodoxy. The left will cry "poverty and cops" and the right will cry "drugs and immigration", with little space in between to explore further.
themgt 5y ago
I don't own a gun nor consider myself much of a "2A advocate", but I do think the complexity of the problem is under-appreciated. First off, we had decades of declining gun violence while total guns in circulation were dramatically increasing [0]. Gun violence up-ticked somewhat around 2015 and then stabilized, and then starting in late May last year began a dramatic rise[1] that has not yet subsided, a rise as far as I know was not seen in any other developed country during the pandemic. Many people also seem to not understand that the vast majority of murders are committed with (usually illegal) handguns[1], so the common focus on "assault weapons" like the AR-15 seems illogical given how few murders they account for annually. I would be very supportive of stronger laws/regulations against carrying guns in public and significant penalties for anyone violating those rules. If someone wants to legally carry in public they should clear a very high bar. The problem is that any serious attempt to get illegal guns off the streets is going to run into 4A and other constitutional challenges and political backlash (and not simply from gun rights advocates). The police in general have become incredibly controversial over the past year, much less heavy-handed preventative policing and gun violence task forces which have run into criticism and defunding over tactics and targets. Violent and especially repeat offenders in general also need to be kept off the street - even among violent criminals a small minority commit the vast amount of violent crime. The reality is "gun control" advocates have the luxury of hand-waving away the incredibly difficult to intractable implementation questions, when on the ground we had more actual real-world "gun control" in 2019 than once the nationwide protests and anti-police sentiment took hold in 2020. Anyone who tried to point out back when this was gaining steam that the likely consequence would be increased violence was shouted down with ad hominems, and now that the violence has shown up statistically we're back to the hand-waving about "gun control". Is there any actual proposed gun control law you're endorsing and some evidence to back up why it would be likely to make a significant dent, and how many people would you predict the police will need to arrest to enforce the law? The primary pragmatic step in gun control is taking violent / illegal-gun carrying criminals off the streets, and the decline in political appetite for actually doing so coincidentally coincided with the dramatic rise in violence we now see. [0] https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/5X2ZKNMFTE2QDNCZDDGRXGZTJA.png https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.c... [1] https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22137087/homicide.png https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22137087/h... [2] https://thetrace.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/homicides-firearm-type-v1-e1506377594584.png https://thetrace.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/homicides-fi...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by simonh 5y ago

injb 5y ago

While we're at it, if you support the 1st amendment, what solution do you have in store for threats, incitement, defamation etc? What about the 4th amendment - presumably you have a solution to people hiding evidence of crimes right? And what's your solution to criminals refusing to consent to interviews with the police? Are you prepared to relinquish these rights if we don't find your solutions adequate?

simonh 5y ago
Those are of course serious issues that any society has to work out. However the existence of those issues don't in any way detract from the existence and seriousness of this one, or provide any reason to neglect it.
- injb 5y ago
  I'm not suggesting that these things justify neglecting it. What I'm responding to is your comment treating Second Amendment advocates as a class with respect to crime. Why should they, as a group, have any particular solution or perspective on this problem, more than anyone else? Maybe this isn't your attitude, and I'm not trying to misrepresent you here, but it's very common for people to expect a level of justification from 2A advocates that would seem absurd and unfair when applied to any other personal right (hence my examples). The implication is that the violence is somehow derived from right to own guns, and therefore people who fight to retain that right have a responsibility to come up with a solution.
  - simonh 5y ago
    Well, from my perspective rights come with responsibilities. If you want to have a right, then there's an obligation there to justify any cost that might have to society. I believe in free speech, including the right of others to say things that I find offensive. I think I can provide arguments that justify that right. I can also give a good account of the reasonable limits that there should be on free speech such as slander, incitement to violence, criminal deception and so on. Unrestrained 'free speech' could be weaponised for malicious ends, so it's really important to get the reasonable constraints and limitations right. If you want to have a right to bear arms, I think the same applies to firearms ownership and use. Personally I think that the current levels of gun violence in the US indicate that it is not under reasonable constraints of that kind. What do you think, is the current level of gun violence in the US acceptable to you, and if not what do you think from the perspective of a 2nd amendment advocate, is the best way to address it?
    - injb 5y ago
      I don't think I can answer your question because as I explained, I don't agree with the premise. > Well, from my perspective rights come with responsibilities It's never quite clear to me what people mean by this. We have responsibilities, certainly. And we have rights. But I don't understand in what sense they are supposed to be linked, as though they were two sides of the same coin. For example, in the UK they don't have anything equivalent to the US 1st Amendment. What responsibilities are they absolved of as a consequence of that? > If you want to have a right, then there's an obligation there to justify any cost that might have to society. Justification is a separate question from responsibility. But why must I justify the exercise of the right first? Why shouldn't you justify your right to restrain me first? It's an important question because we could argue forever about what the costs may or may not be and never reach an agreement. Therefore the status quo has enormous weight. In many places, it's not clear where the burden of justification lies for a given right. The point of the US Bill of Rights was to make this crystal clear for certain issues. I think we disagree on multiple levels here. Firstly, there's the question of what causes the extreme levels of violent crime in a tiny minority of US neighborhoods. You obviously think there's some kind of causal link with the 2nd Amendment. I don't. But secondly, there's the question of what should happen when we don't agree on something like this. You naturally want the system to default to your side. In many countries, on many issues, that's exactly how it is - freedom has to be justified. This is what makes the US different: restraint has to be justified, at least on the short list of issues that were lucky enough to make the cut into the Bill of Rights.

inglor_cz 5y ago

IANAA (I Am Not An American), but the extreme variation in geography of American violence cries for local remedies. And I am not sure whether the mere existence of weapons there is a reason to have a crime hotspot. Madmen aside, people generally kill other people for some reasons. These reasons are closer to the root causes that need attention. Unfortunately the discussion is poisoned by political orthodoxy. The left will cry "poverty and cops" and the right will cry "drugs and immigration", with little space in between to explore further.

themgt 5y ago

I don't own a gun nor consider myself much of a "2A advocate", but I do think the complexity of the problem is under-appreciated. First off, we had decades of declining gun violence while total guns in circulation were dramatically increasing [0]. Gun violence up-ticked somewhat around 2015 and then stabilized, and then starting in late May last year began a dramatic rise[1] that has not yet subsided, a rise as far as I know was not seen in any other developed country during the pandemic. Many people also seem to not understand that the vast majority of murders are committed with (usually illegal) handguns[1], so the common focus on "assault weapons" like the AR-15 seems illogical given how few murders they account for annually. I would be very supportive of stronger laws/regulations against carrying guns in public and significant penalties for anyone violating those rules. If someone wants to legally carry in public they should clear a very high bar. The problem is that any serious attempt to get illegal guns off the streets is going to run into 4A and other constitutional challenges and political backlash (and not simply from gun rights advocates). The police in general have become incredibly controversial over the past year, much less heavy-handed preventative policing and gun violence task forces which have run into criticism and defunding over tactics and targets. Violent and especially repeat offenders in general also need to be kept off the street - even among violent criminals a small minority commit the vast amount of violent crime. The reality is "gun control" advocates have the luxury of hand-waving away the incredibly difficult to intractable implementation questions, when on the ground we had more actual real-world "gun control" in 2019 than once the nationwide protests and anti-police sentiment took hold in 2020. Anyone who tried to point out back when this was gaining steam that the likely consequence would be increased violence was shouted down with ad hominems, and now that the violence has shown up statistically we're back to the hand-waving about "gun control". Is there any actual proposed gun control law you're endorsing and some evidence to back up why it would be likely to make a significant dent, and how many people would you predict the police will need to arrest to enforce the law? The primary pragmatic step in gun control is taking violent / illegal-gun carrying criminals off the streets, and the decline in political appetite for actually doing so coincidentally coincided with the dramatic rise in violence we now see. [0] https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/5X2ZKNMFTE2QDNCZDDGRXGZTJA.png https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.c... [1] https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22137087/homicide.png https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22137087/h... [2] https://thetrace.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/homicides-firearm-type-v1-e1506377594584.png https://thetrace.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/homicides-fi...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]