39 ms·
It's time we start legislating based on empirical evidence instead of lofty ideals. Yes, if everyone was responsible perhaps it would be OK for all of us to own
by librish 4y ago
It's time we start legislating based on empirical evidence instead of lofty ideals. Yes, if everyone was responsible perhaps it would be OK for all of us to own firearms. But so many people are utterly irresponsible, and guns make that irresponsibility lethal.
People should safely store their fire-arms, but they don't and guns get stolen and sold illegally, or used by their teenage child.
People shouldn't point a gun at someone unless their life is in danger and they're prepared to take a life, but they do and people get shot by accident, or road rage turns deadly.
Not to mention the suicides. If you own a gun ideation can turn into action in less than 30 seconds and it can seem like a painless, easy way to go.
And when everyone is armed everyone wants to be armed. Cops pull their guns quickly out of fear of armed criminals. Regular people want to own a gun because they feel like everyone else does, and they're now less safe unless they also get one.
Growing up outside the US I never saw any guns. I don't know of anyone who had a gun. I don't know of anyone who knew anyone who had a gun. I remember seeing military members in parades carrying guns because it was one of the few times I'd actually seen one. Cops didn't walk around armed. There are other ways to kill people but guns are an especially effective, intuitive, and easy way to do so.
- raisehuman12 4y agohttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0002961022002057 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00029... -evidence that assault weapons ban significantly reduced firearm related mortality in USA in 1994 for 10 years.
- la64710 4y agoGreat news from Canada. Freeze put in place for handguns and mandatory buy back of assault rifles. (Also as a side note to Moderators - some people in this thread are unnecessarily flagging comments that supports gun control. Lot of people speak about free speech , hope that is practiced here.) https://www.foxnews.com/world/canadas-trudeau-freeze-handgun-ownership-mandatory-buybacks https://www.foxnews.com/world/canadas-trudeau-freeze-handgun...
- karmelapple 4y agoHere’s a roadmap for policymakers that I think is steeped in evidence: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/claireboine/files/policy.brief_.summary.pdf https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/claireboine/files/policy.b... There are 3 recommended policy changes in there.
- vmurthy 4y agoQuite a quick read and sounds somewhat better than knee-jerk reactions people might have The 3 policy changes in the paper : ``` Evidence suggests that three priority policies would have the greatest impact in reducing overall firearm homicide rates: • Universal background checks; • Prohibition of gun possession by people with a history of any violent misdemeanor, threatened violence, or serious alcohol-related crime or subject to a domestic violence restraining order. This must be accompanied by: (1) a requirement that firearms already in their possession be surrendered; (2) a procedure for confiscating guns if they are not relinquished voluntarily; and (3) procedures for confiscating guns in situations where a person becomes prohibited from owning firearms after having passed an earlier background check; • Extreme risk protection order laws that allow removal of firearms from an individual who, after due process, is deemed to represent a threat to themselves or others ```
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- dgfitz 4y ago> • Universal background checks; Break that one down. Universal for everyone, or just those who want to buy a gun? If I buy a gun because I pass the background check, and then snap and shoot up my place of employ 4 years later, what good was the background check? Who pays for the background check? Who does the background check? What do they check? HIPPA laws would eliminate anything health/medical related. Do they comb all the discoverable social media accounts? Are we just checking criminal history? Should a background check be re-done every 2, 3, 5, n years? I like the idea, but I've been chewing on this problem for the past few days and I don't think background checks would be as simple or effective as we would all like them to be. This is not an argument against background checks in that I think they're a bad idea. I don't think they would do much.
- sb057 4y ago>People should safely store their fire-arms, but they don't and guns get stolen and sold illegally, or used by their teenage child. This is extraordinarily rare. >People shouldn't point a gun at someone unless their life is in danger and they're prepared to take a life, but they do and people get shot by accident, or road rage turns deadly. Brandishing weapons is illegal in every state and not pointing the muzzle of a gun at anything you don't intend to destroy is basic gun safety. >Not to mention the suicides. If you own a gun ideation can turn into action in less than 30 seconds and it can seem like a painless, easy way to go. There's no evidence to suggest that gun ownership causes higher levels of suicide. Additionally, suicide isn't a crime.
- Hamuko 4y ago>not pointing the muzzle of a gun at anything you don't intend to destroy is basic gun safety. Are you required to know basic gun safety in order to obtain one?
- umvi 4y agoNo, for the same reason you don't need to have basic civility/racial sensitivity training to exercise free speech.
- axiomsEnd 4y agoBut you have to pass driving test before using a car...
- tomatotomato37 4y agoFreedom of assisted movement isn't a constitutional right
- bobkazamakis 4y agoInteresting that you would call it freedom of assisted movement -- don't you think that the arms the founding fathers had in mind weren't mass-produced in the state they are in now?
- glogla 4y agoI wonder what would you say about the same argument for mandatory veganism or outright banning cars? The evidence is pretty clear there as well.
- Mordisquitos 4y agoIs it? What empirical evidence do we have that mandatory veganism or outright banning of cars would be a net positive, let alone feasible? To me those two ideas sound like perfect examples of the non-empirical lofty ideals that the previous comment was rejecting in the very first sentence.
- tanmay7270 4y agoNot advocating for it but _eventual_ transition to veganism would definitely be a net positive (lower carbon emissions, land and water use, horrors of factory farming, mental health of the factory workers, exploitation of immigrant labor, etc.). Most of the arguments I've seen from the Veganism movement seem to have sufficient scientific backing.
- Mordisquitos 4y agoYes, that is surely the case. Likewise, a great reduction in the need for cars and their usage would also be a net positive for society and the environment. However, what I was challenging was the assertion that mandatory veganism or banning cars were comparable to effective gun regulation as policies based on empirical evidence instead of lofty ideals. Veganism to reduce carbon emissions and animal suffering, a car-less society to improve communities and public health, and the right to bear arms for the security of a free state are all lofty ideals. However, we have no examples or reasons to believe that enforcing the first two by decree is even feasible, nor can we imagine the unpredictable side effects. On the other hand, there are many examples of states where gun ownership is heavily regulated, restricted, or virtually banned which however remain secure and free and with no obvious downside.
- christophilus 4y agoNot empirical because there's no money to fund such studies, but: Mandatory veganism would almost certainly significantly reduce the healthcare (and food) costs for a society by a large fraction. Banning cars would make the air cleaner, remove a bunch of health problems, and facilitate more social forms of travel which would help form a more cohesive society and probably would reduce a lot of problems which arise from modern urban isolation. I'd personally like to live in a society where people were mostly vegan, there were no cars, and there were no firearms. Whether or not we should force that is another question, but it sure sounds nice.
- hoseja 4y agoHey how about tests to allow people to vote and have children. Sounds like a great idea.
- throwaway15908 4y agoI really want to see that risk assesment.
- testtaaac 4y agoWhat do you consider a test to vote? having never been incarcerated? lots of states already have that implemented.
- renaudg 4y agoYou don't directly kill other people's children by either voting or having your own children. There are tests to allow people to drive a car though.
- LoveGracePeace 4y agohttps://www.reddit.com/r/IdiotsInCars/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IdiotsInCars/
- maccolgan 4y ago>directly kill other people's children by either voting Oh really?
- DeathArrow 4y agoBefore fire arms being invented people took other's lives with knives, swords or clubs. Or poison. Or bare hands. What makes you think that not owning a gun will make people less murderous?
- bruce511 4y agoIt's an issue of volume. It's hard for an 18 year old to kill 20 people with their bard hands, or even knives, without being subdued.
- LoveGracePeace 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
- rjbwork 4y ago20? Yeah, maybe. A bunch though? Not particularly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China
- refurb 4y agoNo, not really that hard. Guy killed 11 woman with a car only 4 years ago in Toronto. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_van_attack https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_van_attack
- slothtrop 4y agoNotice this was vehicular homicide and not murder of children in their schools. That's what bothers people most.
- slothtrop 4y agoVolume, AND cowardice. These murderers find guns empowering for a reason. Most would not try to use their own strength to overwhelm other people.
- 4y ago
- scotty79 4y agoOr just tax bullets and gunpowder so they cost $10k per shot.
- gmadsen 4y agoah so the ruling class with be armed, while the rest are not. sounds great
- xnyan 4y agoThat’s already the reality. By definition the ruling class rules, this of course includes armed forces. All the privately owned weapons in the united states are a joke compared to the weaponry possessed by state. If private weapons were a threat to the state, they would not be allowed.
- artificialLimbs 4y agoHow do you envision that going down, exactly? The army as a whole is generally pro-gun ownership and took an oath to defend the people. General: "Commander, send the tanks to blast the protesters. They're exercising their constitutionally protected right to carry arms, for gods sake!" Commander: =|
- scotty79 4y agoOnce the first bullet flies from the side of commoners nobody will be asking about motives. And it's so easy for the first bullet to fly when there are so many guns around.
- artificialLimbs 4y ago>> And it's so easy for the first bullet to fly when there are so many guns around. As evinced by all the people attacking the military all the time?
- 4y ago
- amelius 4y agoIf at all, perhaps allow geo-fenced guns, which don't work in and around schools?
- nso 4y agoOr Walmart. Or churches. Or music festivals. Or your workplace, so all workplaces. Or your grandma's house.
- amelius 4y agoYes, those too. Perhaps allow guns to work only in the owner's home or around it.
- idiotsecant 4y agoThe point of a gun is that it's a simple machine that works when you need it. Geofenced microcontroller safeties somewhat compete with this and would not be a popular idea.
- bitxbitxbitcoin 4y agoI’ve seen plenty of sci-fi that leads me to believe that the future of this is some sort of finger print reader on the trigger that only allows the designated shooter to shoot.
- Koshkin 4y agoThe recent incidents involved "designated shooters."
- amelius 4y agoWhat if your adversaries have the same problem? Also, we put our lives in the hands of tech all the time.
- Koshkin 4y agoKnives, too? Because I need my gun to work when someone charges at me with a knife in their hand.
- wyager 4y ago> It's time we start legislating based on empirical evidence instead of lofty ideals. I would take anti-gun people more seriously if they actually paid attention to what this entails. For one, anti-gun enthusiast would stop going on about "assault rifles", because only around 200 people a year in the US are killed by rifle homicides. It's totally negligible. Less frequent than blunt instrument homicides. Yet, that's exactly what anti-gun people focus on.
- boppo1 4y agoIt's because they look scary
- paulryanrogers 4y agoSometimes you have to eat an elephant one bite at a time. If guns weren't such a charged issue then more of us would advocate to directly outlaw private gun ownership. Guns add little value to people's lives and are likely to amplify poor decisions into death and serious injury.
- bluGill 4y ago> Guns add little value to people's lives Spoken like someone who lives in a city where you can't use a gun. There is a reason why guns laws are unpopular in rural areas: guns are very useful in rural areas. There is no way to safely shoot a gun in a urban area (except a few gun ranges), so any possible use is dwarfed by the danger.
- SamuelAdams 4y ago> guns are very useful in rural areas. For a more concrete example. My father in law lives in Michigan. His house is seated next to 40 acres of forest. There are often coyotes and other wild animals that will approach his house when they're hungry. If you're unaware, coyotes will hunt, stalk, and kill cats, dogs, and small children. To protect my children (3-5 years old) and his dogs, he shoots them.
- fredgrott 4y agoSome points of interest: -60 percent or more US states have no gun registration, I know as I live in Indiana which changed to a no gun registration state despite objections from their own citizens and cops. -Among religious right guns are seen as a male status symbols -Can we cure this economically by requiring liability insurance in addition to gun registration? It work by, if you have a past history of danger signs then you would be accessed via insurance companies the largest liability insurance price of owning a gun. Similar to vehicle registration and liability insurance
- idiotsecant 4y agoI am deeply supportive of the second amendment but liability insurance for guns seems like a fantastic idea to me. Love in rural Montana and own a long rifle for hunting? You insurance is quite cheap. Live in Brooklyn, are 17 years old, and own a handgun? Quite expensive. Unfortunately like automobiles all this would due is punish the honest people. The people who most should have this insurance just wouldn't buy it.
- refurb 4y agoI know plenty of people driving around in CA without insurance. People may have issues with the NRA, but their basic stance - enforcing existing gun laws - seems like a reasonable start. We haven’t even met that threshold yet.
- mrguyorama 4y agoTaking the NRA at face value is absurd. When actually innocent gun owners get shot and killed by police for no reason, they are routinely silent. They don't care about gun rights, they care about the stock price of arms manufacturers.
- pnutjam 4y agoIt would make it easier to get guns off the street if you could confiscate uninsured weapons and hold them until proof of insurance.
- bko 4y ago> empirical evidence instead of lofty ideals The problem with a lot of anti-gun measures is that the proponents readily admit that they would not have stopped any particular shooter. For instance, people talk about background checks, but this shooter and many others did not have a history and were not known to police. They would have passes a background check. Often times the person acquiring the gun already broke a number of gun laws. Either straw purchase, borrowed someones gun, carrying across state lines, etc. So throwing more laws at it won't necessarily help. Enforcement of existing laws could help but is obviously difficult. Not to mention that gun violence is much higher in cities/counties/states with the most gun control measures. You can say that they just get the guns from elsewhere and national restrictions need to be imposed, but we should see SOME effect. Wyoming should have a higher murder rate than Michigan. So the conversation from anti-gun people basically amounts to less guns everywhere, but that genie might be out of the bottle already. There are already hundreds of millions of guns in the US and it would be impractical to seize even a tiny percent of them. But note that there were always guns in America. In fact, guns were often brought to high schools. In 1969, most public high schools in NYC had a shooting club. And yet there were no school shootings. https://nypost.com/2018/03/31/when-toting-guns-in-high-school-was-cool/ https://nypost.com/2018/03/31/when-toting-guns-in-high-schoo...
- raisehuman12 4y ago
- dgfitz 4y agoI was talking to my wife about this the other night and we came to the same conclusions as the points you made. What we posit at this point is: what didn’t exist in 1969? Social media. The internet. Legislation won’t change anything. <the war on drugs has entered the chat> Proponents of stricter gun control are being idealistic. Having kids in school right now, we are both quite concerned about the current state of affairs when it comes to school shootings. Making guns illegal won’t stop anyone touched enough to shoot up a school/gay bar/concert/grocery store. They’re going to find a way to do it. To think otherwise is ignorance.
- 4y ago
- brightball 4y agoFwiw, pointing a gun at somebody is considered brandishing a firearm and is illegal. At least that's what I was told by an instructor years ago.
- quickthrower2 4y agoI think I read on HN (!) that it is also assault.
- lliamander 4y agoIANAL, but this is correct[1]. Battery is when you actually hurt the other person. [1]https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Assault https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Assault
- TexanFeller 4y ago< Not to mention the suicides My body, my choice. Suicide is not a valid reason to restrict guns.
- raisehuman12 4y agoGuns are built with a purpose. The purpose is to kill someone. So it is not difficult to comprehend why Government needs to make it difficult to buy a gun more than it is difficult to buy medicine. But there are people who propose to remove all restrictions instead to acquire guns. To take it to its logical conclusion that is how wild Wild West used to be. No police no governance no authority. Now question is this. Which option seems more sane to you? You decide.
- LoveGracePeace 4y agoThe purpose of a gun is hunting, self-defense and deterence. Except in the hands of someone intending to murder.
- raisehuman12 4y ago