> Gun violence isn’t one problem, it’s many. And it probably won’t have a single solution, either.
Actually there is a single solution, just because it may be difficult doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Look at what Australia did after the Port Arthur Massacre or the UK after Hungerford and Dunblane. There is an easily identified solution but most US politicians are either too cowardly (want to be re-elected), too corrupt (taking lots of money from NRA) or too stupid to make the connection.
Unfortunately, it's not just the politicians. Key to the making the buyback work was that people were willing to sell. If you tried it in America you'd get white militias in standoffs - think a new Cliven Bundy every week - and cops slaughtering any black person hesitant to turn over their weapon.
I do wonder how other countries do with racial equality. Maybe the AU and UK are the nearest comparison. I know the Us isn’t the only place to have a hate issue.
Gun control in America has always been a racial issue. Black people have never been able to own guns as freely as white people, from the Black Codes to the Mulford Act to Marissa Alexander and Philando Castile today.
> You dont think there will be minorities clinging to their guns?
That there will be is entirely the point of my comment!
> Dont you think your comment is a bit racist?
No. I think America is a lot racist. And I think that will have implications on enforcement if gun control policies are enacted, and so we need to keep that in mind when considering what to enact.
What I find more amazing is how educated, successful people all over the world can be almost deliberately blind to the massive difference that culture can have in the functions of a society.
It’s a deeply ingrained cultural belief in the US. Plus a practical necessity in the Southwest and probably all rural parts of the US. What the US really needs is a way to unify the employment opportunities between the cities and rural areas.
I’m thinking it would both make cities less crowded (less violence) and income and gainful employment are strongly correlated to positive mental states.
Unified in terms of more economic equality. I think reliably good broadband could help for remote work. I think it would take several “New Deal” type projects.
How do you remove 400 million active firearms from the entirety of the nation? The situation with Australia is not analogous, you cannot map that one solution to a completely different context.
Constituents do not want to have their firearms taken away, the politicians aren't corrupt in this situation, they're doing exactly what they were elected to do. NRA's contributions to politicians aren't that impressive, what's impressive is that the organization has millions of members who very actively vote for their interests.
How do you explain a Breivik that happened in a heavily regulated country like Norway?
What do you want to do about trucks? Should we ban them too?
> How do you explain a Breivik that happened in a heavily regulated country like Norway?
One can't say much good about Breivik, but he was committed.
Most of the mass shootings in the US are done by some "looser" who a semi automatic from his mom.
You can't prevent murder, but you can make it harder.
Locks don't stops theft, but they sure make it harder.
Legal gun owners were unable to do anything against the Vegas gunman, legally held guns were useless in that situation. But I agree it is a cultural issue and guns are a tool. However I don't let my kids okay with the circular saw because they cannot get be trusted with it so same goes for guns. Take them all away and when you can show that you are mature enough to have one you can have them back. It won't be easy but it can be done, doesn't mean all guns disappear tomorrow but you can start by preventing new guns from entering the market and work from there.
Mass shootings cause approximately 50ish deaths or so each year in the US. Actual firearm homicides are around 15,000 a year. That's 0.3% of all deaths. How much effort do you suggest the nation invest into this blip on the radar?
> People act like guns are only useful for committing crimes and mass shootings. Guns are a tool; we have a cultural problem, not a simple gun problem.
You have: a gun problem; poverty; a lack of opportunities (education); (mental) healthcare problems; police violence/murder; drug problems; prison condition problem; a sentencing problem; money in politics; issues with due process; ... the list goes on.
These all contribute to people feeling powerless, which presumably causes things like this. You should fix these issues, the rest of the civilized world has.
But hey, an obvious start to fixing this is strong regulation of firearms.
Who do you think is going to disdisarm willingly? Educated, well off middle-upper class, or those you describe? Why must the middle and upper classes sacrifice their safety when a substantial subset of the population violently dehumanizes them? Simply for having more, at that.
You're also imposing your cultural norms onto others. Guns and violence are simply a way of life for millions of people. Good luck taking those guns from your ivory tower.
Perhaps the solution is a little bit more nuanced; or do you seriously believe that half of the country is totally irrational?
I suggest you look into the stastics of shooting deaths in the U.S.. You'll quickly see that banning "assault" rifles is statistically insignificant, especially when considering the benefit of arms.
Those are solutions to a different problem. Australia's buy-back and new legislation only worked because the public overwhelmingly supported them:
> In an Age poll of 2058 Australians taken on 3-5 May 1996, 90 per cent of those surveyed supported a national ban on all automatic and semi-automatic firearms, 88 per cent supported firearms registration, 73 per cent thought that gun owners should pay an annual registration fee for each gun they own, and 69 per cent thought that gun owners should be required to store their guns at an armoury or with the police.
The only sure thing banning guns would do is reduce the fraction of gun deaths due to accidents. The deaths from suicide would likely shift to the next most convenient method. I highly doubt we'd see significant reduction in homicides. I'd be curious to know the numbers on homicides committed using legally vs illegally obtained guns though. Excluding accidents, these issues run far deeper than access to guns. Banning or restricting them will only mask the symptom, not cure the root causes.
Suicide research suggests that ideation is very limited in duration. If a suicidal person can't kill themselves in the next ten minutes, the urge often passes.
Reducing the number of guns could have a significant impact on suicide rate by lowering the ability of people to end their lives within that brief window.
The simple fact of the matter is that you cannot ban firearms in the US. There are too many of them and too many people who would choose violent confrontation over compliance should it come to that.
Forget "politically", gun confiscation cannot be successful on a practical level.
That fascinates me. Large numbers of Australians voluntarily handed over their guns when Australia’s gun control laws went into effect. Why would Americans be so much more resistant?
In short, because it has never been the expectation of Americans that the government has any right to demand it of them.
Note that the US Constitution doesn't grant the right to arms; it merely recognizes it. By what authority does would a government seek to take a right that it never had the power to grant?
30 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 71.6 ms ] threadActually there is a single solution, just because it may be difficult doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Look at what Australia did after the Port Arthur Massacre or the UK after Hungerford and Dunblane. There is an easily identified solution but most US politicians are either too cowardly (want to be re-elected), too corrupt (taking lots of money from NRA) or too stupid to make the connection.
You dont think there will be minorities clinging to their guns?
Dont you think your comment is a bit racist?
Gun control in America has always been a racial issue. Black people have never been able to own guns as freely as white people, from the Black Codes to the Mulford Act to Marissa Alexander and Philando Castile today.
> You dont think there will be minorities clinging to their guns?
That there will be is entirely the point of my comment!
> Dont you think your comment is a bit racist?
No. I think America is a lot racist. And I think that will have implications on enforcement if gun control policies are enacted, and so we need to keep that in mind when considering what to enact.
Could you elaborate on this? How would they be unified, and what would be the impact on gun violence?
Unified in terms of more economic equality. I think reliably good broadband could help for remote work. I think it would take several “New Deal” type projects.
How do you remove 400 million active firearms from the entirety of the nation? The situation with Australia is not analogous, you cannot map that one solution to a completely different context.
Constituents do not want to have their firearms taken away, the politicians aren't corrupt in this situation, they're doing exactly what they were elected to do. NRA's contributions to politicians aren't that impressive, what's impressive is that the organization has millions of members who very actively vote for their interests.
How do you explain a Breivik that happened in a heavily regulated country like Norway?
What do you want to do about trucks? Should we ban them too?
One can't say much good about Breivik, but he was committed. Most of the mass shootings in the US are done by some "looser" who a semi automatic from his mom.
You can't prevent murder, but you can make it harder.
Locks don't stops theft, but they sure make it harder.
People act like guns are only useful for committing crimes and mass shootings. Guns are a tool; we have a cultural problem, not a simple gun problem.
You have: a gun problem; poverty; a lack of opportunities (education); (mental) healthcare problems; police violence/murder; drug problems; prison condition problem; a sentencing problem; money in politics; issues with due process; ... the list goes on.
These all contribute to people feeling powerless, which presumably causes things like this. You should fix these issues, the rest of the civilized world has.
But hey, an obvious start to fixing this is strong regulation of firearms.
You're also imposing your cultural norms onto others. Guns and violence are simply a way of life for millions of people. Good luck taking those guns from your ivory tower.
I suggest you look into the stastics of shooting deaths in the U.S.. You'll quickly see that banning "assault" rifles is statistically insignificant, especially when considering the benefit of arms.
Do you require evidence? :) haha
- sorry, for bashing the US, but you make it so easy..
And if you are pointing at the election: It seems they feel they had two bad choices.
> In an Age poll of 2058 Australians taken on 3-5 May 1996, 90 per cent of those surveyed supported a national ban on all automatic and semi-automatic firearms, 88 per cent supported firearms registration, 73 per cent thought that gun owners should pay an annual registration fee for each gun they own, and 69 per cent thought that gun owners should be required to store their guns at an armoury or with the police.
- http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departm...
Gun bans and buy-backs are much less successful if people won't willingly cooperate.
Reducing the number of guns could have a significant impact on suicide rate by lowering the ability of people to end their lives within that brief window.
Forget "politically", gun confiscation cannot be successful on a practical level.
Note that the US Constitution doesn't grant the right to arms; it merely recognizes it. By what authority does would a government seek to take a right that it never had the power to grant?