5 ms·

> But the argument about guns is not really about, let's ban guns to lower suicide rates. It's way more about, let's ban guns to prevent people who broke down f

> But the argument about guns is not really about, let's ban guns to lower suicide rates. It's way more about, let's ban guns to prevent people who broke down from slaugtering dozen other people each. True enough. So while I could carry on with the debate about suicide, I think it would be more productive to respond to this argument. By virtually every measure banning guns to prevent mass shootings is a terrible idea. There are (conservatively) 80 million gun owners, and hundreds of millions of guns in the US. It would be completely impossible to take all of those guns, or to ban the sale of new ones, and even if you could that would still be depriving tens of millions of citizens a right guaranteed to them by the constitution for no fault of their own. You might argue it is worth depriving citizens of this right if it improves public safety. The evidence is not in favor of this position. This right is not simply some mere hypothetical right to overthrow tyrants, but the right to self defense (including the effective means of that defense). Reasonable estimates (produced by the CDC) put the number of defensive gun uses per year in the hundreds of thousands. If you look at the rates of homicide by state, and compare that with the rates of gun ownership in that state, you find that the correlations are (weakly) negative. The places in this country that have the worst homicide rates also have the strictest gun laws. Mass shootings, while horrific, are a tiny fraction of the total number of homicides in this country. We definitely must address mass shootings, but our plans must be both realistic and not compromise the safety of many thousands more. There are no doubt many factors that contribute to the occurrence of mass shootings. However, one of the biggest factors that contributes to the deadliness of mass shootings is the presence of gun free zones. The vast majority of mass shootings happen in gun free zones, and the evidence suggests that the average number of deaths in mass shootings is arguably much lower if there is an armed citizen putting up a defense. If you want an evidence-based piece of legislation that would curb mass shootings, the elimination of gun free zones should be at the top of your list. It would certainly reduce the average body count of these events. It also stands to reason that if you don't have as many people dying from such events, the appeal of committing a mass shooting (to someone who is seeking fame and a sense of control by killing lots of people) is going to go down considerably.

scotty79 4y ago
> By virtually every measure banning guns to prevent mass shootings is a terrible idea. Except the single most important one. That it worked in every country that did this in response to mass shootings. > depriving tens of millions of citizens a right guaranteed to them by the constitution for no fault of their own If you actually cared about the constitution itself not the fairly modern interpretation reinforced by lobbying group paid with money from gun manufacturing industry, you'd be strongly advocating for the state governents to have right to equip and maintain armed forces independent of federal goverment. Bacause that was the letter and the intention of the second amendment while it was written. It was not about citizens owning guns. It was about states owning sufficient army to counter federal governemnt if it descended into tyranny. > Mass shootings, while horrific, are a tiny fraction of the total number of homicides in this country. We definitely must address mass shootings, but our plans must be both realistic and not compromise the safety of many thousands more. However mass shooting are a thing that very large percentage of people is not willing to accept as the cost of increased security. Especially since any security benefits of having country drowning in guns and ammo are very hard to prove conclusively. > The places in this country that have the worst homicide rates also have the strictest gun laws. It doesn't really matter if a person can cross state border with a gun that is easily and cheaply available with zero hassle on the other side of the border.
- lliamander 4y ago
  > Except the single most important one. That it worked in every country that did this in response to mass shootings. Specify what you mean by "worked". There is little evidence that these regulations had any appreciable impact on homicides or other crimes.[1] > If you actually cared about the constitution itself not the fairly modern interpretation reinforced by lobbying group paid with money from gun manufacturing industry, you'd be strongly advocating for the state governents to have right to equip and maintain armed forces independent of federal goverment. Bacause that was the letter and the intention of the second amendment while it was written. The large majority of funding for gun rights activism comes from grass roots donors[2] Your interpretation of the constitution has no basis. Let's go over the top 3 reasons why: 1. The text specifically says "the right of the people" (emphasis mine). The Bill of Rights is pretty explicit about specifying rights which apply to the people and those which specifically deal with the rights of states. 2. Militia has historically included every able-bodied male of fighting age, not just state militias, and this definition is even encoded in the federal law in United States Code Title 10 section 246 3. There is no evidence to suggest that disarming the American population was even conceivable in the early republic, and the kinds of arms that were privately owned at the time of the revolution included warships with canons. I really must ask: what (in your opinion) would have to change about the text of the 2nd amendment for it to mean what I think it means? > However mass shooting are a thing that very large percentage of people is not willing to accept as the cost of increased security. Especially since any security benefits of having country drowning in guns and ammo are very hard to prove conclusively. I didn't say we had to accept mass shootings, just that our response should not be a knee-jerk reaction to media firestorms that fail to achieve their objective or even result in more overall deaths (not to mention a more authoritarian state). We've already accepted a stupid amount of security theater due to media-driven panics - let's not continue the trend. > It doesn't really matter if a person can cross state border with a gun that is easily and cheaply available with zero hassle on the other side of the border. Why aren't there more murders in the state the gun was purchased? --- [1] https://mises.org/power-market/why-gun-control-doesnt-explain-australias-low-homicide-rates https://mises.org/power-market/why-gun-control-doesnt-explai... [2] https://money.cnn.com/news/cnnmoney-investigates/nra-funding-donors/index.html https://money.cnn.com/news/cnnmoney-investigates/nra-funding...

scotty79 4y ago

> By virtually every measure banning guns to prevent mass shootings is a terrible idea. Except the single most important one. That it worked in every country that did this in response to mass shootings. > depriving tens of millions of citizens a right guaranteed to them by the constitution for no fault of their own If you actually cared about the constitution itself not the fairly modern interpretation reinforced by lobbying group paid with money from gun manufacturing industry, you'd be strongly advocating for the state governents to have right to equip and maintain armed forces independent of federal goverment. Bacause that was the letter and the intention of the second amendment while it was written. It was not about citizens owning guns. It was about states owning sufficient army to counter federal governemnt if it descended into tyranny. > Mass shootings, while horrific, are a tiny fraction of the total number of homicides in this country. We definitely must address mass shootings, but our plans must be both realistic and not compromise the safety of many thousands more. However mass shooting are a thing that very large percentage of people is not willing to accept as the cost of increased security. Especially since any security benefits of having country drowning in guns and ammo are very hard to prove conclusively. > The places in this country that have the worst homicide rates also have the strictest gun laws. It doesn't really matter if a person can cross state border with a gun that is easily and cheaply available with zero hassle on the other side of the border.

lliamander 4y ago
> Except the single most important one. That it worked in every country that did this in response to mass shootings. Specify what you mean by "worked". There is little evidence that these regulations had any appreciable impact on homicides or other crimes.[1] > If you actually cared about the constitution itself not the fairly modern interpretation reinforced by lobbying group paid with money from gun manufacturing industry, you'd be strongly advocating for the state governents to have right to equip and maintain armed forces independent of federal goverment. Bacause that was the letter and the intention of the second amendment while it was written. The large majority of funding for gun rights activism comes from grass roots donors[2] Your interpretation of the constitution has no basis. Let's go over the top 3 reasons why: 1. The text specifically says "the right of the people" (emphasis mine). The Bill of Rights is pretty explicit about specifying rights which apply to the people and those which specifically deal with the rights of states. 2. Militia has historically included every able-bodied male of fighting age, not just state militias, and this definition is even encoded in the federal law in United States Code Title 10 section 246 3. There is no evidence to suggest that disarming the American population was even conceivable in the early republic, and the kinds of arms that were privately owned at the time of the revolution included warships with canons. I really must ask: what (in your opinion) would have to change about the text of the 2nd amendment for it to mean what I think it means? > However mass shooting are a thing that very large percentage of people is not willing to accept as the cost of increased security. Especially since any security benefits of having country drowning in guns and ammo are very hard to prove conclusively. I didn't say we had to accept mass shootings, just that our response should not be a knee-jerk reaction to media firestorms that fail to achieve their objective or even result in more overall deaths (not to mention a more authoritarian state). We've already accepted a stupid amount of security theater due to media-driven panics - let's not continue the trend. > It doesn't really matter if a person can cross state border with a gun that is easily and cheaply available with zero hassle on the other side of the border. Why aren't there more murders in the state the gun was purchased? --- [1] https://mises.org/power-market/why-gun-control-doesnt-explain-australias-low-homicide-rates https://mises.org/power-market/why-gun-control-doesnt-explai... [2] https://money.cnn.com/news/cnnmoney-investigates/nra-funding-donors/index.html https://money.cnn.com/news/cnnmoney-investigates/nra-funding...