5 ms·

Fascinating - but not really a solvable problem if I am going to be cynical about it. Too few data points spread out across different geographies means there ar

by anonu 4y ago

Fascinating - but not really a solvable problem if I am going to be cynical about it. Too few data points spread out across different geographies means there are other problems with higher social impact.

ajross 4y ago
> not really a solvable problem if I am going to be cynical about it Seems like it's a trivially solvable problem. In fact in almost all of the industrialized world it's not a problem at all. You're just saying that you don't want it solved, which is a statement (in the US) as much about political identity as it is about practical policymaking. But it's not about "solvability" at all.
- merlincorey 4y ago
  What is the trivial solution?
  - Filligree 4y ago
    Don’t have guns.
    - Fatnino 4y ago
      Don't have celebrations.
      - whatshisface 4y ago
        Don't fire guns into the air during celebrations. (Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.)
        brippalcharrid 4y ago
        Even not using live ammunition in the guns that you're firing into the air during celebrations would be enough to avoid this particular problem.
        collegeburner 4y ago
        this tbh. me and some buddies will sometimes shoot blanks on auto, like if we're out at a ranch doing a barbecue for the 4th or something. away from people, zero risk, people who are drunk don't get handed the guns. still had a neighbor who was driving by so she could hear it and pitched a fit like, ok karen. edit: hn is ratelimiting me again so here's my response to @chroma comment yeah buddy i'm totally aware of the 86 ban but if your family has stuff before then and moved it to a nfa trust then you're cool. cause it wasn't all that expensive before supply was capped. and the cool part is if you got a bunch of full auto AR lowers you can make a shitton of different configurations and they're all still the same thing legally. literally all you have to do is get a el cheapo thing to screw on the barrel and it cycles fine, sometimes have to tune the gas system but if it's built for the exact model then not much. one guy sometimes brings a m10 and has a closed barrel he fabbed himself for shits and giggles. and no, we all reload so blanks are actually less expensive than a full round. we do a shoot too but sometimes it's fun to shoot off in the air? like usually at the end after we finish up fireworks. why tf are you so pressed about it anyway?
        chroma 4y ago
        I don't believe you. First, because the supply of civilian-owned machine guns was frozen in 1986[1], a mediocre full-auto gun starts at $10,000. Second, blanks won't cycle a gun designed to fire actual cartridges. You need a blank firing adapter or a gun made to fire only blanks. Third, because of economies of scale, blanks are significantly more expensive than real ammo. A few mag dumps would exceed $100. I have a hard time believing that you and your buddies would get blank firing adapters for your ridiculously expensive machine guns so you could burn money even faster than if you were at the range. If everyone handling the guns is sober and you're in a place where the sound of gunfire is acceptable, why not just... set up some targets? It'd be cheaper, more fun, and more believable. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Ban_on_new_automatic_firearms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#...
        collegeburner 4y ago
      - Ekaros 4y ago
        Ban people.
  - whartung 4y ago
    Los Angeles has “trivially” solved this. They did two things. First a large public outreach and education campaign to “don’t do that”. Second, in the areas where this commonly occurred they halted ammunition sales for, I think, a week before the event (notably New Years and 4th oh July). I don’t even think the NRA bothered to fight that one. At the time it had a very notable effect on the volume of gunfire before and after the program went into effect. There was telling news video doing a before and after, and the reduction was significant. We’re any follow up studies done on the effectiveness? I have no idea. Is it still effective (the was done 30 years ago), I also have no idea. But at the time, it seemed to have some impact. And as far as solutions go, it was pretty trivial. Fundamentalists will grouse but c’est la vie, but its scope was really limited.
    - autoexec 4y ago
      In the US most of the solution is going to be education, especially as we take in more and more people accustomed the practice. Really, it's not hard to turn public opinion for/against something, but it does take money and time. If we, as a culture, spent half as much time talking about gun safety and shaming people who fire indiscriminately into the sky as we do talking about "pumpkin spice" and shaming people for their natural bodies we'd be set.
- hash872 4y ago
  It's not 'trivially solvable' because a huge portion of the population will strongly resist the change you're advocating for. Social, political & cultural constraints are a real, serious thing- large-scale civil unrest is very very bad. The rest of the industrialized world didn't have more guns than citizens and a deep culture of gun ownership & resisting the government, hence why your analogy falls apart. You have to work within the social realities of every country, so incrementalism is basically the only thing that really works, as frustrating as that always is for more ideological types to hear
  - ajross 4y ago
    How is "a huge portion of the population will strongly resist the change" (your words) any different from "you don't want it solved" (mine) except that you're projecting the opinion onto someone else? I understand and agree with the rest of your point (even if you're needlessly and insultingly calling me "ideological" when I think my desires are entirely practical ones). But that's still not the same thing as saying that "there is no solution" or that the problem is "unsolvable". Doing that is making an excuse. If you are willing to tolerate people being hurt and killed by stray gunfire, then just admit that you are willing to tolerate it and unwilling to see it solved.
    - bruce511 4y ago
      >> If you are willing to tolerate people being hurt and killed by stray gunfire. This is implicitly baked into the 2nd-amendment cause. It's the primary reason this is such a hot-button political issue. Nothing comes for free. Every benefit has a cost. In the case of guns some part of the population belive (strongly) that the benefits outweigh the costs. The rest (strongly) believe the opposite. The benefit of gun ownership is the idea that the citizenry can overthrow a future hypothetical tyrannical government [1]. The cost is the many lives lost in the real world now. While it may be impossible to say, the phrase "if a few children must die to protect our way-of-life, then that's a price worth paying" springs to mind. [1] the actual efficacy of such a resistance may be questionable (it didn't help the confederacy for example) that's not really the point. The argument is that merely the threat of such an uprising prevents the tyrannical govt from forming in the first place. Of course the argument may be nonsense. New Zealand has survived tyrany with little to no gun ownership, whereas tyrany in places with high ownership, like say Iraq, is not uncommon - which suggests there are other factors in play. But the quality of the argument is not material. The fact is that a significant number of people believe that guns are important, and that the cost of guns is worth paying. Ultimately that is the problem that is "not solvable".
- UncleEntity 4y ago
  Arizona has Shannon’s Law (named after a girl who died) but enforcement is hard because there are cultural issues at play where people don’t even see this as wrong. Still hear gunfire in Phoenix to this day, enough to make me not want to be outside on the “celebratory“ holidays and a lot of other people think this way. They do hunt down people when they can. About ten years ago I was outside a bar after dropping off my passenger and this guy shot 5 or 6 rounds into the sky, apparently mad he got kicked out of the bar or something. The Phoenix PD was looking for him for the next few hours which made my job a lot harder. For my part, once I realized he wasn’t shooting at me I just carried on with my business because, whatever.
- ghufran_syed 4y ago
  The NRA is strongly pro 2nd amendment... Where in their recommended gun safety rules does it imply that firing indiscriminately in the air is acceptable? https://gunsafetyrules.nra.org/ https://gunsafetyrules.nra.org/ Or are you saying that some citizens breaking the law with a device should be addressed by taking away the legal right to use that device? Cars, shovels, knives, hammers, screwdrivers, bricks hvevbeen misused to kill people. Houses have been use to imprison people unlawfully. Should we ban those too? If not, what's the difference? Other than "I don't use guns and I do use those other things"?
- dragonsky 4y ago
  It's a country where in certain parts there is a fairly good chance that a random person walking down the road will be carrying a gun, with no good reason apart from "protection" from other random people walking down the road also carrying a gun. As you say, not a problem in most parts of the world, let alone western world.
steve76 4y ago

by anonu 4y ago

ajross 4y ago

> not really a solvable problem if I am going to be cynical about it Seems like it's a trivially solvable problem. In fact in almost all of the industrialized world it's not a problem at all. You're just saying that you don't want it solved, which is a statement (in the US) as much about political identity as it is about practical policymaking. But it's not about "solvability" at all.

merlincorey 4y ago
What is the trivial solution?
- Filligree 4y ago
  Don’t have guns.
  - Fatnino 4y ago
    Don't have celebrations.
    - whatshisface 4y ago
      Don't fire guns into the air during celebrations. (Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.)
      - brippalcharrid 4y ago
        Even not using live ammunition in the guns that you're firing into the air during celebrations would be enough to avoid this particular problem.
        collegeburner 4y ago
        this tbh. me and some buddies will sometimes shoot blanks on auto, like if we're out at a ranch doing a barbecue for the 4th or something. away from people, zero risk, people who are drunk don't get handed the guns. still had a neighbor who was driving by so she could hear it and pitched a fit like, ok karen. edit: hn is ratelimiting me again so here's my response to @chroma comment yeah buddy i'm totally aware of the 86 ban but if your family has stuff before then and moved it to a nfa trust then you're cool. cause it wasn't all that expensive before supply was capped. and the cool part is if you got a bunch of full auto AR lowers you can make a shitton of different configurations and they're all still the same thing legally. literally all you have to do is get a el cheapo thing to screw on the barrel and it cycles fine, sometimes have to tune the gas system but if it's built for the exact model then not much. one guy sometimes brings a m10 and has a closed barrel he fabbed himself for shits and giggles. and no, we all reload so blanks are actually less expensive than a full round. we do a shoot too but sometimes it's fun to shoot off in the air? like usually at the end after we finish up fireworks. why tf are you so pressed about it anyway?
        chroma 4y ago
        I don't believe you. First, because the supply of civilian-owned machine guns was frozen in 1986[1], a mediocre full-auto gun starts at $10,000. Second, blanks won't cycle a gun designed to fire actual cartridges. You need a blank firing adapter or a gun made to fire only blanks. Third, because of economies of scale, blanks are significantly more expensive than real ammo. A few mag dumps would exceed $100. I have a hard time believing that you and your buddies would get blank firing adapters for your ridiculously expensive machine guns so you could burn money even faster than if you were at the range. If everyone handling the guns is sober and you're in a place where the sound of gunfire is acceptable, why not just... set up some targets? It'd be cheaper, more fun, and more believable. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Ban_on_new_automatic_firearms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#...
        collegeburner 4y ago
    - Ekaros 4y ago
      Ban people.
- whartung 4y ago
  Los Angeles has “trivially” solved this. They did two things. First a large public outreach and education campaign to “don’t do that”. Second, in the areas where this commonly occurred they halted ammunition sales for, I think, a week before the event (notably New Years and 4th oh July). I don’t even think the NRA bothered to fight that one. At the time it had a very notable effect on the volume of gunfire before and after the program went into effect. There was telling news video doing a before and after, and the reduction was significant. We’re any follow up studies done on the effectiveness? I have no idea. Is it still effective (the was done 30 years ago), I also have no idea. But at the time, it seemed to have some impact. And as far as solutions go, it was pretty trivial. Fundamentalists will grouse but c’est la vie, but its scope was really limited.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    In the US most of the solution is going to be education, especially as we take in more and more people accustomed the practice. Really, it's not hard to turn public opinion for/against something, but it does take money and time. If we, as a culture, spent half as much time talking about gun safety and shaming people who fire indiscriminately into the sky as we do talking about "pumpkin spice" and shaming people for their natural bodies we'd be set.
hash872 4y ago
It's not 'trivially solvable' because a huge portion of the population will strongly resist the change you're advocating for. Social, political & cultural constraints are a real, serious thing- large-scale civil unrest is very very bad. The rest of the industrialized world didn't have more guns than citizens and a deep culture of gun ownership & resisting the government, hence why your analogy falls apart. You have to work within the social realities of every country, so incrementalism is basically the only thing that really works, as frustrating as that always is for more ideological types to hear
- ajross 4y ago
  How is "a huge portion of the population will strongly resist the change" (your words) any different from "you don't want it solved" (mine) except that you're projecting the opinion onto someone else? I understand and agree with the rest of your point (even if you're needlessly and insultingly calling me "ideological" when I think my desires are entirely practical ones). But that's still not the same thing as saying that "there is no solution" or that the problem is "unsolvable". Doing that is making an excuse. If you are willing to tolerate people being hurt and killed by stray gunfire, then just admit that you are willing to tolerate it and unwilling to see it solved.
  - bruce511 4y ago
    >> If you are willing to tolerate people being hurt and killed by stray gunfire. This is implicitly baked into the 2nd-amendment cause. It's the primary reason this is such a hot-button political issue. Nothing comes for free. Every benefit has a cost. In the case of guns some part of the population belive (strongly) that the benefits outweigh the costs. The rest (strongly) believe the opposite. The benefit of gun ownership is the idea that the citizenry can overthrow a future hypothetical tyrannical government [1]. The cost is the many lives lost in the real world now. While it may be impossible to say, the phrase "if a few children must die to protect our way-of-life, then that's a price worth paying" springs to mind. [1] the actual efficacy of such a resistance may be questionable (it didn't help the confederacy for example) that's not really the point. The argument is that merely the threat of such an uprising prevents the tyrannical govt from forming in the first place. Of course the argument may be nonsense. New Zealand has survived tyrany with little to no gun ownership, whereas tyrany in places with high ownership, like say Iraq, is not uncommon - which suggests there are other factors in play. But the quality of the argument is not material. The fact is that a significant number of people believe that guns are important, and that the cost of guns is worth paying. Ultimately that is the problem that is "not solvable".
UncleEntity 4y ago
Arizona has Shannon’s Law (named after a girl who died) but enforcement is hard because there are cultural issues at play where people don’t even see this as wrong. Still hear gunfire in Phoenix to this day, enough to make me not want to be outside on the “celebratory“ holidays and a lot of other people think this way. They do hunt down people when they can. About ten years ago I was outside a bar after dropping off my passenger and this guy shot 5 or 6 rounds into the sky, apparently mad he got kicked out of the bar or something. The Phoenix PD was looking for him for the next few hours which made my job a lot harder. For my part, once I realized he wasn’t shooting at me I just carried on with my business because, whatever.
ghufran_syed 4y ago
The NRA is strongly pro 2nd amendment... Where in their recommended gun safety rules does it imply that firing indiscriminately in the air is acceptable? https://gunsafetyrules.nra.org/ https://gunsafetyrules.nra.org/ Or are you saying that some citizens breaking the law with a device should be addressed by taking away the legal right to use that device? Cars, shovels, knives, hammers, screwdrivers, bricks hvevbeen misused to kill people. Houses have been use to imprison people unlawfully. Should we ban those too? If not, what's the difference? Other than "I don't use guns and I do use those other things"?
dragonsky 4y ago
It's a country where in certain parts there is a fairly good chance that a random person walking down the road will be carrying a gun, with no good reason apart from "protection" from other random people walking down the road also carrying a gun. As you say, not a problem in most parts of the world, let alone western world.

steve76 4y ago