We may not be able to change the gun laws, but we can change the culture. The way the media covers massacres has to be more responsible and productive.
Mental health is just as much of an issue as gun control. Mental health gets a lot of lip service, but not enough action. And the shallow garbage that the media spoon feeds to the general public on a daily basis isn’t making us any saner.
We graphic designers are part of the media.
That’s a pretty broad brush generalization there. I’m pretty sure the number of gun accidents in this urban area are far outweighed by the genocidal murder rates in some of the local cities caused by illegal firearms in prohibited hands. At least we can probably agree the gun itself is just an inanimate tool.
The state of MA is a one party state. Total supermajority Democrat. Only 34 republicans of 160 members in the house and only 6 republicans out of 40 in the Senate. You’d think we’d have pretty tight wording regarding gun laws. The problem with our state laws is that people who don’t understand firearms are writing the laws and won’t take advice from those who do know them, fearing they are being “fooled by the gun lobby.”
So we get laws here that unintentionally do things like pretty much making it illegal for a woman to carry a firearm in her purse. Or to have an unsecured firearm in the room where sleeping. Or a criminal breaking into a locked house and stealing a firearm is more the homeowner’s problem than the criminal’s (ie a locked house is not considered a “locked container” under MA storage laws.) It wouldn’t surprise me in this state that if a legally armed citizen entered school property to take out a school shooter, that citizen would suddenly find themselves with less rights than the taken down school shooter.
The MA model of Gun Control is to create so many confusing and contrary laws, with sole-individual options, and then to mix in other regulations under other statutes under other non-legislative regulatory bodies, also with sole-individual interpretations, and then forget to amend the laws if overturned in court, that it makes it nearly impossible for any law-abiding person to ever find their way - and some give up, which I think is the ultimate intent.
But the criminals? They simply do-not-care.
And the 20,000+ who are in such pain that suicide seems the only option, how can we help them? Even the oft-touted Switzerland has a suicide rate higher per capita than ours. Why can’t we, as a world, identify what need isn’t being met there?
A little hyperbole, I guess, but the figures I’ve read on people who know their way around guns and gun safety aren’t all that comforting. For example:
A study published by the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery reported, “For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.” ( http://bit.ly/2sDTQNI )
The University of Washington’s Department of Epidemiology reports that “Only about three in five U.S. firearm owners have received any formal gun training, according to a new study from the University of Washington.” ( http://bit.ly/2BB1Str )
Same here in Utah, but it’s the other party. As a result, there are few restrictions on firearms since the whole issue, like climate change, is believed to be a leftist conspiracy. Instead, the Utah legislature’s chronic obsession year after year is enacting confusing liquor laws and fighting environmentalists.
Interestingly enough, though, your former Republican governor seems headed to become our new U.S. senator.
I’m in complete agreement with both of you on this, but it’s probably a tougher nut to crack than gun violence.
Just a side note: my wife went shopping at Whole Foods yesterday. She’s made friends with several of the employees over the years. Anyway, she asked at the deli counter if one of her friends was working that day. She was told he was dead — shot by his son-in-law in some sort of domestic dispute.
You are assuming that only those opposed to the dictator would have guns. If everyone has guns you have a civil war, which is exactly what happened in Spain.
First of all: I have been really wrong on major issues in the past, and it took me years to understand the other side. This time I may be completely wrong, so take all with a grain of salt. I’m exploring and learning the subject.
Civil war is the better of two bad choices. The idea is that nobody ever has to fire a gun, it’s a passive force to prevent dictators trying to take over a region.
Let’s do a mathematical calculation to have an approximate understanding of the problem. Timescale: 100 years.
We can assume that at least in 70% of nations with no guns somebody from the inside or outside will attempt to take over the country and take away their freedom. Remember that the British alone invaded 9 out of 10 countries in the world, and this is just one factor out of dozens affecting freedom. So 70% is probably a low estimate, but I will explore an even lower estimate.
We can also assume that only 20% of regions will suffer the same fate in areas where gun ownership is high. This is because the gun ownership pushes the game theory equilibrium towards significantly less attempts. Who in their right mind would try to take over the US, where virtually every single citizen will come at you with a gun if you threaten their freedom? Very few will attempt.
We also assume that if the population has guns they have a much higher chance of preserving their freedom: 50% chance vs 15% chance if they are unarmed.
I think the above assumptions are pretty consistent with our recent world history. But I realize it’s all just estimates.
Policy A - Firearms not allowed or severely restricted, thus the scores are higher on all cases because there are less firearm related issues.
Total score for policy A: 0 (zero).
Policy B - Firearms allowed or not severely restricted. In this scenario the scores are lower for all options, because we have firearm related issues.
Total score for policy B: +1.5.
Policy A is risky business, because while 40% of the time it produces the optimal wellbeing of +3, there is a high chance of a severely negative outcome, from which the country can only recover once the corrupt system collapses from within, which typically takes generations. The average wellbeing thus being: 0.
Policy B is winner. With this policy we can preserve freedom for most of the time with wellbeing at +2, and achieve an ‘acceptable’ level of average wellbeing at +1.5, but it’s far from the optimal +3, because of ongoing firearm related issues.
What if the initial assumptions are incorrect? Let’s decrease the chances of a takeover attempt in policy A significantly by 50%.
Numbers will change as follows:
A1. 40%: -0.8
A2. 6.6%: +0.2
A3. 53.4%: +1.6
Total : +1.
Even with these numbers Policy A (+1) is losing against B (+1.5).
Having said that, I still want A to happen, but we need to somehow solve the issue of a potential rogue force taking over regions. Until then B seems more reasonable if we accept the calculation above.
This is hard to accept when you were lucky enough to have enjoyed a long standing good streak of nobody trying to take your freedom. But for those who came from recent conflicts and live under dictatorships right now, the above conclusion is pretty obvious.
Currently only 4 billion people out of 7 live in a democracy. And there are only a handful of nations who enjoyed uninterrupted freedom in the last 100 years. The USA is among those few.
I understand that sometimes you have to use force and to say that violence never solved anything is naive (it’s how we got rid of Hitler).
I could find fault in your assumptions and put forward a set of my own, but let’s jump to the conclusion - you want A to happen (no guns) but you are worried this leaves the door open for someone to take over your country by force. I would imagine that this is what the armed forces are designed to deal with. Or don’t you trust yours to keep you safe?
The UK is a democracy with A as a gun policy. We have also enjoyed uninterrupted freedom in the last 100 years (actually a lot longer) without going to B. You have ignored WW1 and WW2 so I will too as it affected both countries.
The USA continues with B. As an experiment in social behaviour and consequences, how is that working out for you?
You say the USA is one of the few democracies that have enjoyed uninterrupted freedom for the last 100 years. Presumably you include the freedom to carry a gun as one of those freedoms. It is a freedom that we in the UK gladly gave up in order to preserve our society. You won’t find many people here who regret that.
If you think that the cost in human lives of preserving your freedom to carry a gun is worth it, then say so.
If the argument is that more guns keep people safe, then why is the NRA not handing them out for free? I think I know the answer to that and I think I know why the NRA is one of the most rich and powerful lobbying organisations in Washington. Why not buy a shitload of cheap guns and hand them out to all your friends? Hell, anybody you meet? By your argument it would make you safer.
Before this gets too political and everyone starts hating each other…
The US is not a Democracy. It’s a Republic. Or more accurately a Constitutional Republic.
To change the constitutionality of owning a firearm here, the Constitution has to be amended in order for forced disarming by the government to be lawful. For all the rhetoric flying back and forth, no Democrat or Republican has offered to open up a Constitutional Convention by proposing an amendment.
Side note: There are estimates of 50 million to slightly more than 100 million lawful gun owners in the US (depending on who you ask.) There are only about 5million NRA members. Comparatively speaking, the NRA is not the most well funded lobbying organization in the US.
Political discussion has been the death knell of many an online forum.
Agree to disagree on this topic?
Or at least agree to not lobbing virtue-signals?
Well as b shows the graph up top here i can tell you that over 50 % of the gun violence here in South Africa occurs in cape town. This is because of the numbers gang. Its a cultural thing i would say, i have known some of these guys and they grow up living amongst the gangs and they have nothing. The gang offers them a “favour” and boom your are in till you die. The gang originated from the prison system hence going to prison doesnt get you out but even more involved. Of course some individuals join because they want to, others are supplied “tik” ( crack ) as means of payment. Of course this is just whats happening in our country, most crime here is driven by poverty and gangs taking advantage of that. As for school shootings in America, its a sad thing, i dont know what your culture is like or why a kid would want to do that so i cant really comment. I just hope you guys find a better way forward.
Some interesting gun ownership stats here: http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/a-minority-of-americans-owns-most-of-the-guns-and-drives-gun-agenda-studies-show
I’ve seen some of those types of studies. Or at least I’ve seen the data from Harvard University and a couple other MA university studies. Sample size was sometimes considered an issue.
If you were a gun owner and someone from Hahvahd University in the liberal bastion of Boston Mass called you, would you talk to them?
First they have to find someone that will answer the phone/survey and then they have to get a gun owner willing to tell a complete stranger that they do indeed own firearms - and how many. No one I know would do that. And if you didn’t own any, would you be tempted to… uh … exaggerate? The statistics gathered in polls re gun ownership are all over the map. That’s why there is such a large range when it comes to just figuring out how many actual owners there are.
As for the super-owners, I consider it a bonus that if someone responsible has 7 to 140 firearms locked up in a safe, that’s 7-140 not on the street. No idea why they need that many, unless they compete as marksmen, or collect. I suspect a lot of them do it because they can, rather than need. I don’t know about driving the gun agenda though.
This is all kinda off the topic though. If you want to get firearms off the street, you have to do something about the criminal element that steals them and sells them on the street. If all that happens is something perceived to affect only lawful owners first, that will probably cause all kinds of discontent. If you want to keep school children safe, you can’t just consider firearms as the weapon of choice. You have to be willing to invest some money into hardening the buildings, and possibly employing more resource officers.
I agree, government should strictly check the background and mental history before they issue a firearm license to anyone and selling firearm to an unlicensed man should be consider a capital crime and punished severely.
You do realize a Capital Crime is punished by the Death Penalty, right?..Can’t get more severe than that.
I saw this topic bumped to the top and I was like “ooof, not again”. I’m glad there isn’t an October 2018 edition
I’ve had this YT vid on my playlist for years…
… still raw still current 1/2 billion views and endless commentary.