Gun policy analysis thread.

[TSherbs]

Look, I answered sincerely. I don't feel unsafe, and I don't think gun ownership actually makes us safer. If you want guns to solve property crimes, I think that you're just trading up the sliding scale of fear, violence, and insanity. Or, you're just making gun companies rich.

How does it matter where I live? So that you can dismiss my answer? Don't ask a question that you then reject the sincere answer of because you think that my context is irrelevant. If I had agreed with you, would you have asked where I live?

There's another divide between people like you (no slur intended)...

No slur perceived by me.

and people like me, you don't feel unsafe having been robbed.

True. People have differing emotional responses to similar experiences.

I have been robbed and assaulted, and certainly didn't feel like giving them the benefit of the doubt that I would be ok.

Yes, a part of our fear response is often connected to how we respond to a sense of a loss of control.

I feel that leaving the decision for my welfare in the hands of those who would assault others is not rational.

I am not sure that "rational" is the right word for this. It sounds emotional to me.

That you do not marks a profound difference, and does that mean a solution can never be found?

I don't know. In politics and law-making, we let votes and majority rule work out the "soultions." People don't need to agree or reach consensus.

So to wish to defend oneself is fearful or insane?

No. But perhaps seeing threats *frequently* or *commonly* or *ubiquitously* is not rational either. Just because I have been mugged once does not mean that I will ever be targeted again. If I live in fear of this and it begins to govern my money spending, my habits, even my psychology, maybe my fear is warping my quality of life out of proportion to the actual likelihood of any injury, and perhaps my accomodations of my fears have other consequences on other people. If I buy a gun legally to protect myself and never need it, but two generations later that same gun accidentally kills a child or is used in a crime of passion, there is a consequence to that purchase. Again, I see our gun totals in America like a toxic waste that is accumulating with consequences coming later. Every weapon purchased illegally and/or used in a crime was manufactured and sold originally as a legal weapon. I have read that even some cops that confiscate guns have later sold them off for profit. My point is not to disparage police, but rather that saturating the citizenry with weapons as we have in the US also means that there are just that many more weapons available for the illegal market. Fear also creates the "rationale" for an esclating "arms race" and we move toward "mutually assured destruction" (the term for the standoff among nuclear nations). What are we ever going to do with all these weapons that exist in America? If, say, another 100 million are manufactured and sold over the next few years, will 100 million others be decomissioned and melted down? (I know that the answer is no). So, new ones just get added to the pile. Guns don't degrade and deteriotate that quickly, and we are in a manufacturing and purchasing boom. I just want us to take a longer, larger look at this and ask some questions about macro policy and planning and management. These are tools meant to put holes in human flesh. Let's take that seriously and maturely and make a 100-year plan for managing it.

Or not.

you seem to be more than a little paranoid on how others think.

I don't understand this remark.

[dneal]

This is a good read for those who think the Second Amendment is about gun ownership.

"The Supreme Court has been clear that the Second Amendment’s reference to a “well-regulated militia” means well-regulated by the government. "

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/27/o...smid=share-url

Meh... more blue-anon hysteria about Trump and "insurrectionists".

The opinions regarding the Supreme Court and the Constitution conveniently omit DC v Heller, Chicago v McDonald, and most recently Bruen. The NYT ignoring facts is not really a new thing though.

[Chuck Naill]

I take note you didn’t disagree or correct Raskin. That’s a wise move. He is a Constitutional expert.

[Chip]

How very mature of you.

Look at the times and the number of posts. Is it mature to allow a troll to practice his obsessive/compulsive delusions and lob insults, wasting my time?

If you feel an obligation to suffer that sort of thing, be my guest.

[Lloyd]

I haven't viewed scottt's posts as the work of a troll. I think he's done admirably at giving his perspective on this complicated issue.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

My take is that he's parroting talking points from the NRA and the Republican right, justified with vague descriptions of threats and paranoid fantasies (e.g. a criminal creeping up the stairs to his bedroom).

He's logged 118 posts, all of them (except for five, early on) on this gun thread. Makes me wonder if he's paid by some group to make a round of websites with a similar mission.

I've run into several paid trolls on other web forums.

I've also wondered if he's a sock puppet of dneal's, since his speech patterns and juvenile mockery are similar.

In any event, I'm done with him and his output.

[Chuck Naill]

Most are not addressing the point. Some how to appear clever and others are trolls.

[TSherbs]

He's logged 118 posts, all of them (except for five, early on) on this gun thread....

That's curious.

[scottt]

You're the mathematician. Tell us if there is anything to this sample and possible "correlation."

I've lived in three large cities, too, by the way. Bigger than yours. I've had murders on my street, robberies at gun point, an aborted fetus in a paper bag in a gutter outside my apartment, and one of the first cyanide/Tylenol deaths was around the corner from me. I've been spat on as a teacher in Boston and had my life threatened.

Still never wanted a gun. But that fat groundhog under my shed and eating some of my lettuce irks me to no end. My neighbors just shoot them. Not me.

So you've had murders on your street and never gave a thought to defending yourself? Or just with a gun?

Nope. Maybe you should expend some efforts to try to understand the other side, too. What is so surprising about a deeply-felt aversion to owning firearms? You can't imagine it?

Believe me, I am trying. I just want to be sure I am understanding correctly. I can indeed imagine such an aversion, it is something shared by many. What I am wondering about is the scope of the belief, specifically regarding defense. Does such an aversion include every manner of defense, such as tasers, pepper spray, etc, as they would also add a variable in the situation of being assaulted or mugged, or is it just the one type of item?

[scottt]

This is a good read for those who think the Second Amendment is about gun ownership.

"The Supreme Court has been clear that the Second Amendment’s reference to a “well-regulated militia” means well-regulated by the government. "

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/27/o...smid=share-url

That's quite the read. I do have a question, regarding the debacle on Jan 6. When I see 'armed protesters', my first thought is they are armed with firearms, but reading up on it I see the vast majority were not armed with guns. Which would mean limited involvement with the Second Amendment, wouldn't it?

[scottt]

Tsherbs, thanks again for a very well thought out response.

While fear certainly plays a part in almost all people's decisions, even if that part is minute at best, I'm not sure it is the right term for thinking about a situation (in my case, working someplace that had been robbed, so it was not a fantasy, but more a very possible scenario) and determining a course of action. I do not feel criminals have my best interests (mental, physical or emotional) at heart. I have never heard or found anything that would disprove that belief (if they had my best interests, wouldn't they not rob/assault me?) so I act on it, determining a possible need for protection. Given my level of abilities and skills (I was not an accomplished knife fighter, etc) I chose to utilize a tool that allowed some measure of defensive capability. I can't see fear entering the decision, it was pretty cut and dry.

Certainly you are correct in that seeing threats everywhere may not be rational, but I am not discussing someone jumping in alarm at every sound. Looking at the stats for crime in major cities and other places I have to go, combined with the type of neighborhood, and also those around me, it is more a case of awareness. Is it not possible to look at an area/group and determine there may be an increased chance of a problem versus sitting alone at home? I believe there is, simple situational awareness. Of course, anything can be taken too far, but I do not feel this is the case here.

You take a very philosophical view of the long-term effect of weapons in our society. We have weapons for hunting, pest control, defense, target shooting, etc, and you make an excellent point on the longevity of such things, as if they are properly maintained they can easily last fifty years or in some cases far longer.

When people do disparage and lose faith in police, many feel the need to defend themselves, that being one of the reasons for new guns to enter the market.

What are we going to do with them all? That is quite the question, and a fair one at that. In previous generations gun ownership was not much of a problem, but there were millions out there. This does bring up the question 'what has changed?'

If you could snap your fingers and eliminate mass shootings, what do you think society's view on guns would be? No news cycles focusing on mass shootings. I don't recall a whole lot of concern over the gang shootings out there, aside from the occasional blurb about Chicago or Baltimore or some other city having shootings during a holiday weekend. There simply wasn't a lot of fanfare about it.

Mass shootings in my opinion are a result of mentally ill behavior. Criminals usually have a tangible goal, money, goods, even revenge on others. Mass shooters seem angry at the world. Perhaps focusing on the past shooters and their motivations might give us a better handle at stopping future behavior?

A 100-year plan certainly sounds admirable, though our opinions must change drastically for it to have any chance of even being drawn up let alone succeeding. People want to be safe, people also see crime not being addressed, so there will always be a percentage of those people who will not see removing guns as a reasonable result of that situation.

I do agree that if nothing is done, we will have more guns than ever. Bans on magazine limits and carry are being overturned, so the populace will be more armed than before. This will result (along with many other things) in more criminals encountering armed citizens. Does this result in lower crime rates? Or more outlandish behavior?

Perhaps I should not have said paranoid and said I believe you might be overthinking on other's reasons for thinking in a certain way? I don't ask questions to set up an answer, I just want to know why/how someone can think a certain thing in a certain way is all.

[Lloyd]

I don't mind guns used in defense. I dread their use in offense.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[scottt]

He's logged 118 posts, all of them (except for five, early on) on this gun thread....

That's curious.

Not overly so. I tend to read the reviews of the wide array of inks (prefer Diamine at the moment, some of the Cult pens offerings are very nice), pens (latest was a Jinhao 65, very similar to a Lamy model) and stationery (TR all the way), and found this thread.

As I have an interest in gun policy, I started to respond.

[scottt]

I don't mind guns used in defense. I dread their use in offense.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Same here. As I've said, intent is key. Fire can cook food or kill, guns can save or destroy, water can quench thirst or drown someone.

I'd like to see research on better non-lethal (or technically, I think they call them less than lethal, as even a Taser can, in certain circumstances, kill) offerings for people, just in general. But that also opens up a can of worms if used incorrectly.

[Lloyd]

Tasers can kill (less predictably than guns. I doubt if they've been used for intentional murder or suicide). I doubt a classroom of kids would be slaughtered by a taser nor pepper/bear spray.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

This is a good read for those who think the Second Amendment is about gun ownership.

"The Supreme Court has been clear that the Second Amendment’s reference to a “well-regulated militia” means well-regulated by the government. "

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/27/o...smid=share-url

That's quite the read. I do have a question, regarding the debacle on Jan 6. When I see 'armed protesters', my first thought is they are armed with firearms, but reading up on it I see the vast majority were not armed with guns. Which would mean limited involvement with the Second Amendment, wouldn't it?

Yes, but again, the article was not mostly about the second amendment, despite the title (usually assigned by editors trying to attract readers/clicks)

[TSherbs]

You're the mathematician. Tell us if there is anything to this sample and possible "correlation."

I've lived in three large cities, too, by the way. Bigger than yours. I've had murders on my street, robberies at gun point, an aborted fetus in a paper bag in a gutter outside my apartment, and one of the first cyanide/Tylenol deaths was around the corner from me. I've been spat on as a teacher in Boston and had my life threatened.

Still never wanted a gun. But that fat groundhog under my shed and eating some of my lettuce irks me to no end. My neighbors just shoot them. Not me.

So you've had murders on your street and never gave a thought to defending yourself? Or just with a gun?

Nope. Maybe you should expend some efforts to try to understand the other side, too. What is so surprising about a deeply-felt aversion to owning firearms? You can't imagine it?

Believe me, I am trying. I just want to be sure I am understanding correctly. I can indeed imagine such an aversion, it is something shared by many. What I am wondering about is the scope of the belief, specifically regarding defense. Does such an aversion include every manner of defense, such as tasers, pepper spray, etc, as they would also add a variable in the situation of being assaulted or mugged, or is it just the one type of item?

No, not "every" method. The other ones you mention are less lethal and don't have as long of a "half-life," so to speak, and aren't as prone to lethality in accidents, etc.

But again, let us not forget, that it is perhaps wisdom, as Chip has said, that is the best defense against what we fear, and does not threaten anyone else with projectiles designed to cut holes in flesh. You keep mentioning tools that harm, but there are other options that involve no weaponry. You might even try letting go of your warrior/defense point of view, There are other ways to manage fears besides living behind a fortress (that's a metaphor, mostly).

[dneal]

I take note you didn’t disagree or correct Raskin. That’s a wise move. He is a Constitutional expert.

Chuck, there's nothing to disagree with. Any idiot that thinks "The Supreme Court has been clear that the Second Amendment’s reference to a “well-regulated militia” means well-regulated by the government" hasn't been paying attention. The courts have decided, repeatedly, precisely the opposite on what the second amendment has been clear on.

But hey, you haven't even read (or refuted) Heller. You can probably find the decision at your local library, by the way.

[dneal]

The courts have decided, repeatedly, precisely the opposite on what the second amendment has been clear on.

For now...

Statement of the obvious in some cryptic tone to imply insight. Are you prepared to discuss this topic? or just doing the drive by for funsies?

I don’t believe your grasp of the U.S. legal or political systems is up to the task. We have done this many times before.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

If you wish to understand, know that a sudden comprehension comes when the mind has been purged of all the clutter of conceptual and discriminatory thought-activity.
Those who seek the truth by means of intellect and learning only get further and further away from it. Not till your thoughts cease all their branching here and there,
not till you abandon all thoughts of seeking for something, not till your mind is motionless as wood or stone, will you be on the right road to the Gate.

- Huangbo xiyun ( 黄檗希运 )