3 ms·

> a specific legislative agenda I don't know. Seen from outside, the gun control issue do not seem to belong to the "political agenda" layer, along who's next

by gbog 14y ago

> a specific legislative agenda I don't know. Seen from outside, the gun control issue do not seem to belong to the "political agenda" layer, along who's next for presidential or the latest political sex scandal. From the outside view, gun control belong to the common sense layer, near "he who stole someone else's money will go to jail" and "tanks are not allowed on highways". It should even not be called "gun control", but "lethal weapon for sale at the next block". I hope US citizen are aware they are very different from most other countries in this regard. They may ask themselves if this specificity is an improvement over other laws, and then should be evangelized abroad. Or maybe it is an aberation? Or maybe it is some "cultural exception" (a la Chinese) and then, justified by what specifical traits?

rdl 14y ago
The reason why this is something I don't support is that they are promoting a very specific gun control agenda, which seems to have been essentially randomly generated (or cynically politically generated), vs. either aimed at the specific problem in Sandy Hook or the statistically prevalent causes/factors of gun violence. Saying "we need to do something about gun violence" is a much less overtly political message than "we must adopt these specific 3 policy items." If they wanted to deal with Sandy Hook in specific, enhancing the mental health bars on getting weapons, enhancing safe storage, etc. would be most effective with the least cost. After that, banning semiautomatic rifles and handguns, but this would require constitutional changes. Armed security at schools would be another approach (being endorsed by Senator Boxer). For Aurora, mental health bars, possibly waiting periods, and possibly preempting local gun free zones would be the specific policy remedy with the least cost; banning semiautomatic pistols and handguns would be the intrusive but effective solution (via constitutional amendment). For spree killings in general, the low hanging fruit is consensual agreement by the media to not dramatize the killers -- don't ever mention their names, similar to how suicide bombers are handled in Israel. It's not the media/video games/etc. in general, it is specifically how the media treat these incidents. If they want to deal with statistically prevalent gun violence, they should focus on handguns (80-90%) and the drug war. Rifles and shotguns are essentially irrelevant to that. Domestic violence is another issue, and there have been really strong changes in the past 10 years to address that (confiscating guns over even misdemeanor DV convictions, unless you're the Sheriff of San Francisco.) Suicide is the other big issue around gun deaths, which I'm not sure you can really address through regulation, but better mental health access would probably be the best solution. There should be a discussion of what the aims of legislation are (reducing gun crime overall, reducing specific types of crime), and then pick and promote measures which will actually accomplish those. As far as I can tell, this was just a bunch of things a few mayors (Bloomberg, specifically) already wanted (interstate transport, 100% background check for all sales), and then the magazine ban randomly thrown in. There is some really low hanging fruit which virtually everyone would support (100% checks on all transfers, mental health bars for getting guns, enhanced penalties for crimes at the federal level involving guns, and per-state changes to gun crime laws).
- gbog 14y ago
  All this seem very Byzantine to me (French). Why not adopt laws used in Europe: no guns, except for hunting rifles with permit, cops and a few specifics. Or you think all Europe, and most other countries are out of their mind to not allow anyone and his dog to carry a weapon when going to the drugstore?
  - thaumaturgy 14y ago
    Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but the problem with this in the U.S. is that we are indoctrinated at an early age with the notion that it was the right to own guns that primarily won us the revolution. i.e., any attempt to limit the ownership of firearms in the U.S. is seen as a direct assault upon the brave minuteman militia that rose up to defeat those red coats in glorious battle in 1776. (That last bit was satire, not serious.)
    - gbog 14y ago
      Then this creation myth should be slowly amended, because it is harmful. There is a similar debate in France about the "impure blood" mentioned in the Marseillaise, should we remove it? If proven harmful, I'd say yes. Our countries are solid enough to allow some adjustment in their necessary creation myths.
gyardley 14y ago
You're absolutely welcome to think what you like, but I'd be a bit wary of thinking your view of firearms is just 'common sense'. You know, during some of my family members' lifetimes, my own people were subjected to a genocide by a government who first deprived us of the right to own any weapons. Just a generation before, the country that perpetrated this genocide was considered one of the best places for our people to live on earth. Given this, I'm certainly not inclined to trust any particular nation-state, and letting a government disarm me seems a bit on the foolish side.
- gbog 14y ago
  This is a view I have seen elsewhere. It's consequence is that everyone should have firearms at home in every country. Are you sure you want that? Because, you know, you shouldn't want something for yourself that you couldn't reasonably want for everyone.
  - gyardley 14y ago
    Yes, of course I'm sure.
    - gbog 14y ago
      So let's imagine that starting today Chinese people are allowed to buy and carry guns. Do you believe the world is a better place, including for those who do not want or can't use guns?

by gbog 14y ago

rdl 14y ago

The reason why this is something I don't support is that they are promoting a very specific gun control agenda, which seems to have been essentially randomly generated (or cynically politically generated), vs. either aimed at the specific problem in Sandy Hook or the statistically prevalent causes/factors of gun violence. Saying "we need to do something about gun violence" is a much less overtly political message than "we must adopt these specific 3 policy items." If they wanted to deal with Sandy Hook in specific, enhancing the mental health bars on getting weapons, enhancing safe storage, etc. would be most effective with the least cost. After that, banning semiautomatic rifles and handguns, but this would require constitutional changes. Armed security at schools would be another approach (being endorsed by Senator Boxer). For Aurora, mental health bars, possibly waiting periods, and possibly preempting local gun free zones would be the specific policy remedy with the least cost; banning semiautomatic pistols and handguns would be the intrusive but effective solution (via constitutional amendment). For spree killings in general, the low hanging fruit is consensual agreement by the media to not dramatize the killers -- don't ever mention their names, similar to how suicide bombers are handled in Israel. It's not the media/video games/etc. in general, it is specifically how the media treat these incidents. If they want to deal with statistically prevalent gun violence, they should focus on handguns (80-90%) and the drug war. Rifles and shotguns are essentially irrelevant to that. Domestic violence is another issue, and there have been really strong changes in the past 10 years to address that (confiscating guns over even misdemeanor DV convictions, unless you're the Sheriff of San Francisco.) Suicide is the other big issue around gun deaths, which I'm not sure you can really address through regulation, but better mental health access would probably be the best solution. There should be a discussion of what the aims of legislation are (reducing gun crime overall, reducing specific types of crime), and then pick and promote measures which will actually accomplish those. As far as I can tell, this was just a bunch of things a few mayors (Bloomberg, specifically) already wanted (interstate transport, 100% background check for all sales), and then the magazine ban randomly thrown in. There is some really low hanging fruit which virtually everyone would support (100% checks on all transfers, mental health bars for getting guns, enhanced penalties for crimes at the federal level involving guns, and per-state changes to gun crime laws).

gbog 14y ago
All this seem very Byzantine to me (French). Why not adopt laws used in Europe: no guns, except for hunting rifles with permit, cops and a few specifics. Or you think all Europe, and most other countries are out of their mind to not allow anyone and his dog to carry a weapon when going to the drugstore?
- thaumaturgy 14y ago
  Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but the problem with this in the U.S. is that we are indoctrinated at an early age with the notion that it was the right to own guns that primarily won us the revolution. i.e., any attempt to limit the ownership of firearms in the U.S. is seen as a direct assault upon the brave minuteman militia that rose up to defeat those red coats in glorious battle in 1776. (That last bit was satire, not serious.)
  - gbog 14y ago
    Then this creation myth should be slowly amended, because it is harmful. There is a similar debate in France about the "impure blood" mentioned in the Marseillaise, should we remove it? If proven harmful, I'd say yes. Our countries are solid enough to allow some adjustment in their necessary creation myths.

gyardley 14y ago

You're absolutely welcome to think what you like, but I'd be a bit wary of thinking your view of firearms is just 'common sense'. You know, during some of my family members' lifetimes, my own people were subjected to a genocide by a government who first deprived us of the right to own any weapons. Just a generation before, the country that perpetrated this genocide was considered one of the best places for our people to live on earth. Given this, I'm certainly not inclined to trust any particular nation-state, and letting a government disarm me seems a bit on the foolish side.

gbog 14y ago
This is a view I have seen elsewhere. It's consequence is that everyone should have firearms at home in every country. Are you sure you want that? Because, you know, you shouldn't want something for yourself that you couldn't reasonably want for everyone.
- gyardley 14y ago
  Yes, of course I'm sure.
  - gbog 14y ago
    So let's imagine that starting today Chinese people are allowed to buy and carry guns. Do you believe the world is a better place, including for those who do not want or can't use guns?