yeah this video game thing is stupid.

Democrats won't admit that this is largely an intractable problem, so they propose all sorts of bad responses.

Republicans won't admit that it's largely an intractable problem, or in some cases a problem at all, so they propose non-responses.

The real answer is that it's an intractable problem. We can do only a few things. They won't solve it. They mostly aren't the things that "feel good" to the left, and they are things that "feel bad" to the right, or at least the current right, although really wouldn't be.

I'd like to explore a licensing program. I also think we'd get a lot of mileage out of drug war and criminal justice reform.

8/6/2019 12:12:57 AM

Quote :

"I also think we'd get a lot of mileage out of drug war and criminal justice reform."

You're operating under the assumption that the war on drugs and entrenched gun culture are unrelated, which is false.

If we acknowledge that American gun culture (along with military worship and subservience to law enforcement) is mostly right wing and a function of white supremacy, then we can understand that their is ZERO motivation among proponents of gun fetishists to revisit our criminal justice system and drug laws.

Why would they decriminalize something that advances their agenda of white dominance over minority communities?

8/6/2019 12:26:07 AM

JHC how come cops are afraid to go into certain neighborhoods to patrol and investigate crimes? I hear you on the white supremacy notion about gun culture, but to isolate it all to those people is short sighted and false

And I'm not saying some black neighborhood couldn't get firebombed or something, but to act like armed citizens don't mean anything to authority is just disingenous

[Edited on August 6, 2019 at 2:11 AM. Reason : .]

8/6/2019 2:09:25 AM

Where are these neighborhoods and who are these cops? Got any anecdotal evidence?

8/6/2019 6:56:45 AM

yeah Fox News said there are scary no-go zones that are ruled by gangs and sharia law!

[Edited on August 6, 2019 at 8:20 AM. Reason : the real no-go zones are places like bundy ranch]

8/6/2019 8:20:12 AM

Quote :

"The real answer is that it's an intractable problem. We can do only a few things. They won't solve it."

Well, yes and no. It's true that there are already so many guns floating around this country that there's really not a way to "solve" the problem of gun violence any time soon, probably within our lifetimes. But I think there are steps that could help some aspects of the problem from getting worse.

I think a good first step would be to check the flow of new guns into the market, ideally to something below the rate of attrition that will steadily remove old guns from it. Banning the sale of new guns is impractical and I'd oppose it anyway. I really do think we have the right to buy guns. I don't think we have the right to buy cheap guns. Tax the shit out of them. Categorize them by risk to the public, and for the more dangerous ones, tax the absolute fuck out of them. Use those taxes to pay for a universal licensing scheme and require both parties in every firearms transaction - sale, gift, whatever - to have a license and to register the transaction. Make the penalty for ignoring those rules a lifetime revocation of gun ownership rights, then make the penalty for violating that revocation harsh.

Boost the rate of attrition wherever possible. Incentivize people to turn in their weapons, then destroy them. The idea isn't to eliminate guns from the population, but to use supply and demand (and taxes and restrictions) to make the barrier to buying a new gun high - impossibly high for unstable high school students and other marginally employed disaffected young men.

8/6/2019 8:22:24 AM

^good post

Anything we can do to reduce the chances that someone with malice will have access to a mass murder tool is a step in the right direction

8/6/2019 8:41:01 AM

my only problem with the make guns really expensive idea is that makes sure only the good ones have guns and those people are usually the biggest fascists, we need more than price controls

[Edited on August 6, 2019 at 9:21 AM. Reason : .]

8/6/2019 9:13:16 AM

Can anybody tell me a practical reason why drum magazines should be legal?

And if we did something like Grumpy suggested, then that would further the conspiracy theory that gun ownership exists solely to protect rich white property.

8/6/2019 9:46:45 AM

free single shot pistols for everyone!

8/6/2019 9:48:19 AM

^^ what about 30-50 feral hogs that run into my yard within 3-5 mins while my small kids play?

http://digg.com/2019/30-50-feral-hogs-meme-twitter-why

8/6/2019 11:12:55 AM

Quote :

"It's about securing and maintaining white dominance over the population. It's about preserving the American white colonial project both domestically and abroad."

How exactly does arming non-whites secure white dominance over the population? You realize every-time the news reports there has been a white racist mass shooting, non-whites feel "unsafe" and go buy more guns? What on Earth have you been smoking?

Quote :

"Tax the shit out of them."

Someone who expects to be dead in the next few days will have no objection to paying the taxes on buying guns. All a tax does is dissuade non-violent individuals who aren't sure whether they should own a gun or not, exactly the people we shouldn't mind having guns.

Our government should do better at revoking the rights of dangerous people. But, beyond that, mass shootings are a cultural phenomenon, just like drug use. It is insane to suggest we can stop it, stupid to even try.

[Edited on August 6, 2019 at 11:36 AM. Reason : .,.]

8/6/2019 11:32:30 AM

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/

8/6/2019 11:37:57 AM

Quote :

"my only problem with the make guns really expensive idea is that makes sure only the good ones have guns"

Yeah, I have the same qualm. In my fantasy world there'd by a mechanism whereby people willing to submit to extensive training (either on their own time, or through military service, or what have you) would get extensions or even the right to retain their government weapons a la the Swiss system. In the slightly-less-fantastical world where any of my proposals would ever see the light of day, I figure better to get the number of civilian guns to a more manageable level first, then figure out how to make their distribution more equitable.

I also gave some thought to an income tax incentive for turning in firearms, to discourage the rich from hoarding more than their share, and perhaps even to encourage them to buy up and turn in existing weapons. That would hasten the attrition rate, as long as the excise tax on new firearms is high enough that they aren't worth buying just to turn in.

Quote :

"Someone who expects to be dead in the next few days will have no objection to paying the taxes on buying guns."

Sure, but they have to actually come up with the money. Based on what we know of many of these shooters, they aren't exactly rolling in disposable income. Saving that money takes time - time during which their intentions can be detected, or in which they might change their minds, or what have you. It also forces them to endure longer-term deprivation as they save for the weapons, which they may find more difficult than short-term death. And even if they insist on shooting a bunch of strangers regardless of all of that, it makes it substantially less likely that they'll acquire multiple weapons, as is the case in many shootings.

But of course, you're ignoring several other parts of my post, including a more robust licensing scheme, and the overarching goal of the tax, which is simply to reduce the number of firearms in circulation so that those which remain can be more easily regulated. As a sane, nonviolent gun owner, sensible regulation is my overarching goal.

8/6/2019 6:53:48 PM

^Or if they have decent credit they could just get a personal loan or some credit cards and buy whatever they want. Doubtful they are worried about making the payments!

8/6/2019 8:23:43 PM

Possibly. My suspicion is that many of them don't have decent credit, but whether or no, every step you put between ideation and potential violent action is another opportunity to reconsider, fuck up, and/or get caught.

8/6/2019 9:48:12 PM

so, what would happen to the people that already own an assault rifle if a ban were to be passed?

Would they be able to keep them, or would them have to give them up?

8/7/2019 1:13:16 AM

Quote :

" white racist mass shooting"

Quote :

"mass shootings are a cultural phenomenon"

Quote :

" white racist mass shooting"

Quote :

"mass shootings are a cultural phenomenon"

Quote :

" white racist mass shooting"

Quote :

"mass shootings are a cultural phenomenon"

Quote :

" white racist mass shooting"

Quote :

"mass shootings are a cultural phenomenon"

8/7/2019 1:52:04 AM

rich white guys like the las vegas shooter should certainly have all the guns. also our nazi government.

next.

8/7/2019 11:21:17 AM

The central problem with the "we don't want rich people to have more guns than the rest of us" complaint is that it paints us into a corner where all of the options are even worse than what we have to deal with as it is.

We could either...

1) Take away everybody's guns, which isn't going to happen, and if we tried very hard to make it happen, the result would be bloodshed on a level not seen in this country since the Civil War. And it won't keep rich people from having more guns, anyway. We banned cocaine, and rich people can buy more of that, too.

2) Take away guns, but only from the rich people, which is laughable for more reasons than I have time to list.

3) Give away guns to poor people, or maybe just people who agree with us politically. Of course, a large percentage of those people (progressives, liberals, however you want to slice it) don't actually want any guns, and wouldn't know what to do with one if they got one, and of course this would immediately move all the people who don't agree with us to grab all the guns they could and start a civil war while they're at it.

I think all of those are very stupid options. Which is why I like the not-even-close-to-perfect-but-at-least-it-does-something, non-civil-war-starting option of "Reduce the number of guns and make it hard for crazy people to get them." Yes, it will allow rich people to have more guns than poor people, but so does any system. I have bad news, guys: money can be used to buy things.

8/8/2019 8:22:17 AM

there are other ways to "reduce the number of guns and make it hard for crazy people to get them" that are not only taxing guns to make them super expensive

8/8/2019 9:07:34 AM

Sure. But all of them leave rich people more able to acquire guns than poor people. It's true of the status quo, it's true of banning guns, it's true of licensing and background checks. Saying that rich people will have the advantage isn't a criticism of any given plan, it's a criticism of reality.

8/8/2019 10:39:51 AM

the criticism is in regards to the idea of only using price controls, not that anything that increases prices any amount is automatically bad

8/8/2019 10:46:51 AM

its fairly well established that regardless of money poor people have trouble jumping through other hoops as well. the focus should be 100% on crazy people. the left wants to ignore them and the right wants to arm them.

8/8/2019 11:10:02 AM

Quote :

"the left wants to ignore them "

wat

8/8/2019 11:22:05 AM

Quote :

"the criticism is in regards to the idea of only using price controls,"

I don't only want to use price controls. I also want universal background checks and licensing and an appealable red flag system, for starters. But rich people are still going to have the advantage and that criticism is still weak.

8/9/2019 7:18:03 AM

what part of your post encourages attrition other than the pricing?

8/9/2019 10:24:08 AM

I referenced incentives for people to turn in firearms for destruction, which could take various forms. I'm open to suggestions there, but ultimately it's going to have to be voluntary. Any plan predicted on seizing firearms or banning their production is even more doomed to failure than most proposals.

8/9/2019 12:43:44 PM

oh voluntary you say! great! werent there mandatory high capacity magazine registrations in CT or NJ that nobody participated in?

these ideas are foolish considering your targets.

8/10/2019 10:02:01 AM

Registration and background checks should be mandatory. Handing over weapons to the government to be destroyed should be voluntary, except as punishment for a crime.

8/10/2019 10:19:18 AM

do you actually know any of these people

8/10/2019 2:50:47 PM

philly mayor using shooting to push gun control but shooter was a felon and was barred from owning guns already

8/15/2019 6:42:45 AM

Can someone who has studied economics tell me what happens when you decrease the supply of a controlled good? Does it make it easier or harder for you to obtain this good illegally?

8/15/2019 6:53:39 AM

Any gun control effort is likely to increase demand for guns on the black market. The advantage to a program that restricts the introduction of new guns is that it strangles supply for the black market, too, and will have a similar effect on their prices.

Think about drugs. Some drugs, restricting the legal supply does almost nothing, because they can be produced or imported illegally and in large quantities. Marijuana can be grown almost anywhere. Coca can be grown on an industrial scale in much of South America, and in its refined form is so compact that it is easily smuggled. Even toothless hillbillies can make meth at home.

Contrast this with, say, quaaludes. You can't really make ludes at home, so when legal production was banned or severely restricted around the world, the black market for this popular drug contracted massively. I would argue that the quaalude example is most analogous to that of the firearm.

Guns are hard to produce at home. It can be done, of course, but to make reliable weapons on any scale is an expensive task, requiring specialized equipment and skilled labor. That goes double for the sorts of semi-automatic rifles and handguns that have been used in so many mass shootings. So illegal supply is costly to produce, and illegal demand is nothing like what it is with drugs. A higher percentage of Americans own guns (~29%) than use drugs (~10% of adults in the past year, per CDC), but I'm willing to bet big that the percentage who would risk prison time to get one is a lot lower. Nobody's addicted to guns, for one thing.

There's still the risk of imports, of course; but again, guns aren't drugs. They're bulky, difficult to smuggle in large quantities, and they only break down so much for retail smuggling. It will happen, but again, I'd venture that it won't be on anything like a large enough scale to undermine the overall effect of the supply control program.

8/15/2019 7:55:22 AM

^^price goes up creating black markets, gangs, violence. See war on drugs



[Edited on August 15, 2019 at 7:59 AM. Reason : ^beat me to it ]

8/15/2019 7:57:38 AM

i have a feeling you don't actually agree with his post

8/15/2019 8:07:53 AM

^^^heroin vs oxy. Prescription drugs have far surpassed heroin bc they are so much easier to get, and in some cases abusers can even obtain their own semi legally


Look at where Mexicos gun supply comes from

[Edited on August 15, 2019 at 8:34 AM. Reason : E]

8/15/2019 8:33:01 AM

I thought the answer to my question was going to be self evident to beats but...right over his head, even with it explained out right in front of him

8/15/2019 8:58:04 AM

major wooshed

8/15/2019 9:03:23 AM

I went to drugs because it was obviously what ElGimpy was going for. But there's a long list of things which are prohibited in the United States, or which are heavily restricted on the supply side, but which don't spawn thriving black markets. There's also the demand side. There aren't criminal gangs fighting in the streets over who gets the best corners for selling lawn darts. There's not a cartel murdering people who speak out against selling dog-fur coats. Either product would be easy to make in secret, but they don't spawn huge black markets because very few people want them at all and even fewer want them badly enough to risk jail or fines.

So with lawn darts on one end of the demand spectrum and crack cocaine on the other, I'm thinking that guns will ultimately fall somewhere in the middle but closer to the darts. The existing black market would probably get a boost, but the draw for most participants in the illicit trade would continue to be anonymity, untraceability, and evasion of individual prohibitions against gun purchases, rather than a price advantage.

[Edited on August 15, 2019 at 10:05 AM. Reason : Stupid phone]

8/15/2019 10:04:33 AM

Quote :

"There aren't criminal gangs fighting in the streets over who gets the best corners for selling lawn darts. "

yet.

8/15/2019 10:18:34 AM

Actually I wasn't going for drugs, for all the reasons you specified guns would be very different, but I wasn't specific enough, my bad

Either way, point reached...curtailing production of guns, or certain kinds, would result in it being more difficult to obtain them, even illegally...hence, being cynical about this police chief's plea to make guns harder to get is valid, regardless of whether or not this guy purchased his gun illegally

8/15/2019 10:46:48 AM

Btw California banned assault weapons and you can still get these with 10 round mags

[Edited on August 15, 2019 at 12:38 PM. Reason : At a gun store]

8/15/2019 12:28:19 PM

Would it be super hard to ban those as well? How much money would it cost to do that? How many less animals will people be able to kill?

8/15/2019 12:43:34 PM

2 round mag limits! 1 for the warning, 1 for the lesson.

8/15/2019 2:22:55 PM

they should probably make it harder to un-california a california rifle

8/15/2019 4:53:35 PM

Limiting those guns to 10 round magazine seems like a good idea to me. Is some asshole going to have enough training to reload fast enough to not get tackled?

8/15/2019 10:09:28 PM

2 arguments in favor of more gun control in a row from bearsunc, impressive

8/15/2019 10:37:11 PM

the buyback should take the form of tax relief not a check in the mail.

also these ideas are all shit due to the sheer number of guns, especially ARs, since they became man jewelry after the AWB expired. any worthwhile discussion has to cover reducing the overall number of weapons before you start nitpicking features of weapons.

also remember sheriffs are pussys and they arent going to enforce any of this, again, scale.

8/16/2019 12:30:20 PM

Quote :

"Guns are hard to produce at home."

Kind of. This has gotten dramatically less so over the last few years, because the gun crowd has seen how this might end up and has developed solutions, largely for the purposes of "anonymity, untraceability, and evasion of individual prohibitions against gun purchases."

Quote :

"There aren't criminal gangs fighting in the streets over who gets the best corners for selling lawn darts."

Which is why a better avenue towards reducing gun violence is through changing our approach to the drug war.

Quote :

"ould it be super hard to ban those as well?"

CA has banned all sorts of guns over the years; the manufacturers always develop new stuff to be compliant. As a side note, CA typically bans dumb shit like pistol grip and thumbhole stocks, which does no good whatsoever except to try to cast a wide net over the types of guns they especially don't like--but as you see there, the industry and community always finds a way--usually a simple one. Same thing with "bullet buttons", collapsible stocks, etc.

Quote :

"Limiting those guns to 10 round magazine seems like a good idea to me. Is some asshole going to have enough training to reload fast enough to not get tackled?"

Ehh, I don't know. It's pretty easy to reload within a few seconds. It would also be pretty to plan an attack, if you just wanted to indiscriminately inflict mass casualties, where it wouldn't matter if it took 3 seconds or 30 seconds. (Las Vegas, for example)...or even most of the rest, if they had a handgun to cover themselves with until they could reload.

Quote :

"also these ideas are all shit due to the sheer number of guns, especially ARs, since they became man jewelry after the AWB expired. any worthwhile discussion has to cover reducing the overall number of weapons before you start nitpicking features of weapons."

Agreed, except for 2 points:

1. The overall number of weapons ship has long since sailed, although yes, nitpicking features is a stupid approach, demonstrated over and over again, even when the people writing the laws have at least a kindergarten-level understanding of the features to begin with, which is far from a given.

2. I would argue that ARs became man-jewelry with the introduction of the AWB, not the expiration of it. Those types of weapons were rarities prior to the ban--once the ban was enacted, production and sale of ban-compliant versions (which were functionally about as dangerous as the banned versions, because of the stupid features-nitpicking approach) really skyrocketed. Once set into motion by the ban, people became vastly more widely exposed to these platforms, and began to recognize and appreciate the platforms (in particular, the AR-15), to where it went from not just being man-jewelry, but widely and genuinely appreciated.

8/16/2019 6:03:00 PM