Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Heretic proposes that gun legislation be based on the ability to prevent deaths rather than to hurt the feelings of gun nuts   ( washingtonpost.com) divider line
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

1573 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Oct 2017 at 2:32 PM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



111 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-10-04 12:47:28 PM  
Good article. Good conclusion.
 
2017-10-04 01:01:26 PM  
Yep. Surprisingly, I came to similar conclusions after watching Bowling for Columbine. My takeaway was that Canada is also awash in guns, but they have far fewer shootings.

It's probably a culture issue that we need to face. That means broad based and fuzzy public service announcement campaigns and talking. Hey, don't get so angry. If you get angry talk it out. If you're thinking of shooting someone, here's where to get help.

And we need some science based tactics. How do we convince a domestic violence committer to not commit domestic violence? How do we convince gang members to not shoot each other? How do we prevent suicide? How do we make rampant (and violent) gun fetishists less violent (assuming that's a thing).

Instead of glorifying "we don't have to take it, blam, blam, blam" let's glorify safe gun ownership and bonding at the range while practicing safe gun storage, handling, and shooting.

And there might be something in the water. Literally, like lead. Lead is a substance the increase violence in people for some odd reason.
 
2017-10-04 01:05:22 PM  
And as a lefty, we can probably have a better conversation about reducing the harm of guns if I'm not reflexively trying to grab them out of people's hands and calling them names. Especially when the science isn't definitive.

/Although I still reserve the right to mock people that shoot themselves while mis-handling a gun.
 
2017-10-04 01:05:24 PM  
I'm all for a data-driven approach.  The big flick items in gun violence are the broad availability of handguns that can without much problem make it to criminal hands, the ease with which a gun turns a suicidal thought into a suicidal completion (vastly more frequent and effective than other means), and the domestic dangers that guns pose to intimate partners and children.

Yes the mass shootings are American Exceptionalism and emotional, but the big numbers are in more regular, societal ills.

Bottom line, however, is that nothing will come of this heretic's clinical analysis nor the emotional appeals from us lunatic lefties.  The only thing the gun owners of America have to fear (besides themselves and their family's blunders) is a continued drop-off in the value of their AR-15 and ammunition stockpiles from the pre-Hillary buying frenzy.
 
2017-10-04 01:07:50 PM  
Oh, it's definitely a culture thing. We have a culture of fear, mistrust, exaggerated individuality, and, most disturbingly, the notion that guns are tools that can solve a wide variety of problems.
 
2017-10-04 01:24:34 PM  
What we need isn't so much to reduce the number of guns...but the reasons that people turn to violence. If people don't have reasons to turn to violence, then the issues come down to gun safety and safe storage. And the best way to reduce violence in this country ISN'T to limit the flavor of violence, but make violence not a go to solution.

Education, health care--physical and mental--and economic opportunities and fairness reduce the reasons that folks will turn to violence. Folks who feel safe, who have hope for their future, who aren't worried about their loved ones' futures, and who feel like they can and are contributing to society, they don't tend to race for arms to resolve issues. Unless it might be that pesky woodchuck in the garden again.

But that's not a sexy solution. It's not something that is going to get a lot of fanfare, and people don't see the direct correlation with improving education and social justice and economic fairness and a drop in violence, because it is a slower, less showy process. Simple health care and mental health care--and that includes destigmatizing actually getting help when you need it--put a great deal of less stressors on folks--and that might actually save a few marriages as well. In the realm of greater economic opportunity, again, the benefits range wide, and not only can we give folks hope for a future, and to participate in it, we might actually see folks sticking together, joining with greater participation in their communities, and with that increased stake, take measures to care for that community better.

But they're not the sexy solutions. They're not "easy" like a "vote for this law to STICK IT to the Repugs!" Or keep it down to STICK IT THE LIBS! And people don't have the time it seems to think of longer term solutions, and the harder choices. Health care reform and that includes mental health care and working like Hells to get folks help that they desperately need, that takes some time and effort. Economic opportunity can also lead to a drop in some drug use--though, it might increase a few others, but junkies getting help with better health care and once kicked, if they can get jobs, and support to STAY clean, that's a net positive to the tax base.

It boils down to looking at decreasing violence NOT in a sweeping single law that will KO violence. Because that's not going to happen. You aren't going to change the pressure cooker that is the US, without intrinsically changing the conditions. You have to take reasons for turning to violence away, and MOST of those mean giving folks better options. That there are kids who think that picking up a gun is a BETTER option for getting a slice of something worthwhile says something about the conditions that they're living in. How much hope they really have. And if you want to counter that, you have to give them better options.

Take away the reasons that people turn to violence, and it doesn't matter how many guns that they have, because they're not going to turn them on one another, are they? It also sucks the power out of lobbies who are constantly girded for "war" against their industry, and their power wanes and their rhetoric wanes with that.

Gun control is a great way to KEEP the gun lobby important and active. You only feed the damn thing, when we could be approaching the actual problem, which is violence, and stop looking at the symptoms.
 
2017-10-04 01:30:04 PM  

LadySusan: Yep. Surprisingly, I came to similar conclusions after watching Bowling for Columbine. My takeaway was that Canada is also awash in guns, but they have far fewer shootings.

It's probably a culture issue that we need to face.


Yes, Canada has plenty of guns. You can pick hunting rifles and ammo up at any Canadian Tire.

Ideally, yes, dealing with the reasons people generally harm themselves or others with guns would help. The people biggest on allowing "hobbyists" to stockpile military-grade weaponry with impunity tend not to big on that though, unless you consider mass imprisonment or deportation of young brown men an ideal solution for gang violence.
 
2017-10-04 01:38:38 PM  

hubiestubert: Education, health care--physical and mental--and economic opportunities and fairness reduce the reasons that folks will turn to violence. Folks who feel safe, who have hope for their future, who aren't worried about their loved ones' futures, and who feel like they can and are contributing to society, they don't tend to race for arms to resolve issues. Unless it might be that pesky woodchuck in the garden again.


I think literacy studies on prison populations speak to this: The Literacy Project Foundation found that three out of five people in U.S. prisons can't read and 85 percent of juvenile offenders have trouble reading. Other research has estimated that illiteracy rates in prisons are as high as 75 percentof the prison population.

When people are not given tools to control their life and fit in productively, they will still act on impulse and end up harming themselves and others.  Not that there aren't genuinely misanthropic people at every SES and education level, but we are failing a lot of people in this country by letting them slide out of education.  I watched on Vice News, I think an interview with a young, 20-something man in Chicago that lived in one of the very bad neighborhoods and he actually broke down crying, begging the interviewer to help him get out.  Not too coincidentally, that very man was shot and killed within days.

Again: this addresses the big-number issues of violence but not the high-visibility mass shootings in general.
 
2017-10-04 01:39:07 PM  
Why do we need to treat the two concepts as mutually exclusive? Why not implement real reforms that will actually address causes of violent crime while also passing laws intended solely to stick it to the gun nuts?
 
2017-10-04 02:00:04 PM  

factoryconnection: hubiestubert: Education, health care--physical and mental--and economic opportunities and fairness reduce the reasons that folks will turn to violence. Folks who feel safe, who have hope for their future, who aren't worried about their loved ones' futures, and who feel like they can and are contributing to society, they don't tend to race for arms to resolve issues. Unless it might be that pesky woodchuck in the garden again.

I think literacy studies on prison populations speak to this: The Literacy Project Foundation found that three out of five people in U.S. prisons can't read and 85 percent of juvenile offenders have trouble reading. Other research has estimated that illiteracy rates in prisons are as high as 75 percentof the prison population.

When people are not given tools to control their life and fit in productively, they will still act on impulse and end up harming themselves and others.  Not that there aren't genuinely misanthropic people at every SES and education level, but we are failing a lot of people in this country by letting them slide out of education.  I watched on Vice News, I think an interview with a young, 20-something man in Chicago that lived in one of the very bad neighborhoods and he actually broke down crying, begging the interviewer to help him get out.  Not too coincidentally, that very man was shot and killed within days.

Again: this addresses the big-number issues of violence but not the high-visibility mass shootings in general.


Given that most* mass shootings are committed by folks 20-30, generally from broken homes, and who have either been bullied or felt persecuted in some fashion, increased economic stability and better access to mental health care resources, we can reduce these sorts of events. That, and maybe by curbing the slavish devotion to dissecting and playing up the fame aspects of these acts.

*There ARE exceptions, yes. The Pulse Shooter was from an intact and wealthy background, though in fairness, he came by HIS brand of crazy honestly if you look at his father. And he's pretty much been a coddled d*ck his entire life who REALLY wanted a life of busting heads open, and had been thwarted again and again on that front. The Killdozer fella was far older, and he snapped in a stellar fashion, feeling that he was NOT given a fair shake by his bank or the county in the least.
 
2017-10-04 02:34:56 PM  
While we're at it, below is a list of all the guns Barack Obama's seized as president:
 
2017-10-04 02:35:47 PM  
I read this yesterday and thought it brought up some interesting points.  However, one thing I don't remember it bringing up is that America is filled with Americans and Americans are the problem.  Remove them from the equation and guns aren't as much of an issue (at least when compared to other developed nations).  But since we can't do that (although I'm sure the Natives wouldn't mind), there's really only 1 thing to do.  That thing is to not allow someone to purchase 33 farking guns, some with the ability to turn into full automatic, in a 12 month period.
 
2017-10-04 02:35:56 PM  

LadySusan: Yep. Surprisingly, I came to similar conclusions after watching Bowling for Columbine. My takeaway was that Canada is also awash in guns, but they have far fewer shootings.

It's probably a culture issue that we need to face. That means broad based and fuzzy public service announcement campaigns and talking. Hey, don't get so angry. If you get angry talk it out. If you're thinking of shooting someone, here's where to get help.

And we need some science based tactics. How do we convince a domestic violence committer to not commit domestic violence? How do we convince gang members to not shoot each other? How do we prevent suicide? How do we make rampant (and violent) gun fetishists less violent (assuming that's a thing).

Instead of glorifying "we don't have to take it, blam, blam, blam" let's glorify safe gun ownership and bonding at the range while practicing safe gun storage, handling, and shooting.

And there might be something in the water. Literally, like lead. Lead is a substance the increase violence in people for some odd reason.


The NRA has lobbied against the CDC collecting data on gun violence.  We need that data, and their fear of it is not a reason to block its collection.
 
2017-10-04 02:40:03 PM  

EyeballKid: While we're at it, below is a list of all the guns Barack Obama's seized as president:


Is there a fast or furious list of the guns he might have made available?
 
2017-10-04 02:40:08 PM  
Surely we can reduce gun crime by focusing our political efforts on the kind of guns used in 2% of gun crimes.
 
2017-10-04 02:41:24 PM  

LadySusan: Yep. Surprisingly, I came to similar conclusions after watching Bowling for Columbine. My takeaway was that Canada is also awash in guns, but they have far fewer shootings.

It's probably a culture issue that we need to face. That means broad based and fuzzy public service announcement campaigns and talking. Hey, don't get so angry. If you get angry talk it out. If you're thinking of shooting someone, here's where to get help.


Part of that is that we just can't get rid of the 'Wild West' mindset that is part and parcel of why there is such a rabid sub-section of gun culture (which is interesting, since gun control was pretty damn stringent in the actual West...at least in towns and cities).

And we need some science based tactics. How do we convince a domestic violence committer to not commit domestic violence? How do we convince gang members to not shoot each other? How do we prevent suicide? How do we make rampant (and violent) gun fetishists less violent (assuming that's a thing).

The best way to deal with this is to actually allow those scientists and doctors and others to study the issues and find ways of dealing with them, instead of leaving it to our elected officials to be the be all, end all of deciding.

Instead of glorifying "we don't have to take it, blam, blam, blam" let's glorify safe gun ownership and bonding at the range while practicing safe gun storage, handling, and shooting.

Again, this goes back to what I said about the whole 'Wild West' mindset (coupled with a lot of testosterone laced verbiage when the gun manufacturers advertise their weapons, and yes, even those marketed to women).  And the NRA hasn't given a shiat about actually standing for their original charter since the takeover of the rabid gun lobby in the 70's, so we can't expect them to ever be the rational actor ever again, unless there is another takeover of the group by rational actors.

And there might be something in the water. Literally, like lead. Lead is a substance the increase violence in people for some odd reason.

If this were the 40's through the 80's, I would agree.  There has been a lot of studies that show a correlation between the amount of lead in the environment and the number of people who were prone to violent and/or criminal acts.  While it's still possible, it's not as probable anymore.
 
2017-10-04 02:42:12 PM  
Until the vast majority of gun owners realize that "limiting a very specific type of weapon or the capability of a very specific type of weapon" does NOT mean "they're taking all my guns away," then there will be no conversation, and the rest of us will just have to live in an ever-devolving society where mass shootings are just way of life.
 
2017-10-04 02:42:14 PM  
I thought that was a pretty interesting read, and is definitely food for thought.

Something has to be done, maybe starting with the RIGHT thing is a good idea?
 
2017-10-04 02:42:42 PM  
Yes to most of this article.  But ya know, we can do both.  Hey know what would help this?  If the NRA would stop blocking firearm studies and maybe get back on the rails of being a sportsmans association rather than trying to be a mini militia.

And sorry NRA snowflakes, about your fee-fees.
 
2017-10-04 02:42:55 PM  
*a way
 
2017-10-04 02:44:30 PM  
Oh dear. An article about guns that focuses on individual people at risk of offending/being victimized, rather than the entire population?
 
2017-10-04 02:46:34 PM  

LL316: I read this yesterday and thought it brought up some interesting points.  However, one thing I don't remember it bringing up is that America is filled with Americans and Americans are the problem.  Remove them from the equation and guns aren't as much of an issue (at least when compared to other developed nations).  But since we can't do that (although I'm sure the Natives wouldn't mind), there's really only 1 thing to do.  That thing is to not allow someone to purchase 33 farking guns, some with the ability to turn into full automatic, in a 12 month period.


Didn't he only use one gun in the shooting?
 
2017-10-04 02:47:26 PM  
The Second Amendment sez SHALL NOT.BE INFRINGED and I want my damn RPG!!!!  It's my heritage!!!!!111
 
2017-10-04 02:47:54 PM  
The one enormous flaw with this article though is fixing the most toxic parts of American gun culture will mean implementing more compassionate social programs and that means MAH TAX DOLLARZ BEEN SPENT ON THEM SITY POORS etc...
 
2017-10-04 02:48:43 PM  
Fine and well, except that we're dealing with a small but very loud voting block that (a) deals in absolutes, to the point where the background checks that the vast majority of Americans support are seen as "gun-grabbing," and (b) has a significant Venn overlap with the portion of the voting populace who votes on candidates and policies specifically and explicitly for their ability to "hurt the feelings" of the left-of-hard-right.

Maybe if the NRA didn't block gun violence studies and stopped using fear of the Other and of the government to enrich the manufacturers that they represent, we could have that subtle legislation that the author proposes.
 
2017-10-04 02:48:53 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-10-04 02:51:47 PM  

Destructor: EyeballKid: While we're at it, below is a list of all the guns Barack Obama's seized as president:

Is there a fast or furious list of the guns he might have made available?


Wow. The Benghazi before Benghazi. You must be a retro act.
 
2017-10-04 02:51:47 PM  
Heretic proposes that gun health care legislation be based on the ability to prevent deaths rather than to hurt the feelings of gun nuts Ayn Rand worshipers and insurance company executives.

Hey this is a fun game - you can mad-lib the entire Republican party platform this way.
 
2017-10-04 02:51:56 PM  

EyeballKid: While we're at it, below is a list of all the guns Barack Obama's seized as president:


I thought that he had confiscated my .22LR target pistol, but it turns out that I had forgotten that I left it in the trunk of my car.

/The above is a joke: I do not leave my firearms in my car and I keep them in a secured location at home.
 
2017-10-04 02:52:59 PM  
American culture all too often views violence as the first, best option to a resolve a problem.

That not only screws us up at hone, but leads to our foreign policy disasters.
 
2017-10-04 02:53:33 PM  
I'm really not interested any more. This country made its choice and I see no sign at all that it has reconsidered. Talk is pointless. It's been going on for over thirty years and we're moving inexorably toward "you have a right to carry a machine gun into church, but if you say you want to vote, you probably just committed a crime."

Blah blah blah.
 
2017-10-04 02:55:15 PM  

Graffito: LadySusan: Yep. Surprisingly, I came to similar conclusions after watching Bowling for Columbine. My takeaway was that Canada is also awash in guns, but they have far fewer shootings.

It's probably a culture issue that we need to face. That means broad based and fuzzy public service announcement campaigns and talking. Hey, don't get so angry. If you get angry talk it out. If you're thinking of shooting someone, here's where to get help.

And we need some science based tactics. How do we convince a domestic violence committer to not commit domestic violence? How do we convince gang members to not shoot each other? How do we prevent suicide? How do we make rampant (and violent) gun fetishists less violent (assuming that's a thing).

Instead of glorifying "we don't have to take it, blam, blam, blam" let's glorify safe gun ownership and bonding at the range while practicing safe gun storage, handling, and shooting.

And there might be something in the water. Literally, like lead. Lead is a substance the increase violence in people for some odd reason.

The NRA has lobbied against the CDC collecting data on gun violence.  We need that data, and their fear of it is not a reason to block its collection.


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Cdc+gun+death+stats
 
2017-10-04 03:01:25 PM  

Thingster: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Cdc+gun+death+stats


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_%281996%29

Bulk statistics are one thing, actually studying the issue of firearm related injury and death, and the underlying factors of such, is another.
=Smidge=
 
2017-10-04 03:02:21 PM  
Bbbut what about the feelings of the guns themselves? Won't someone think of their feelings? (Just kidding, those that spend their nights making sweet sweet love to their gat fantasies care)
 
2017-10-04 03:06:55 PM  
The Constitution is a document that has and can be amended. The Framers could not possibly have dreamt of the awesome killing power of automatic weapons when they drafted the 2nd Amendment, and would not have approved of such power, unrestricted, in the hands of the citizenry. That's because Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and Adams were highly educated, deeply thoughtful statesmen, not a mouth-farting douchebag like Trump.

People armed themselves in America the late 18th century because lawlessness was rampant. There was no trained municipal police, and a walk in the woods was fraught with dangerous animals and cutthroats. It was every man and woman for themselves pretty much.

There is just no justification for granting easy access to mass killing machines in this day and age. Sadly, though, if executed first graders and pot-shot Congressman aren't enough to change T2A, nothing will.
 
2017-10-04 03:07:15 PM  

Archidude: American culture all too often views violence as the first, best option to a resolve a problem.

That not only screws us up at hone, but leads to our foreign policy disasters.


I find the difference most telling in the two most recent Godzilla movies. In the 2014 version, they explodify Godzilla right in his face right when he shows up.

In Shin Godzilla, they wait until Godzilla has already pretty much trashed all of Tokyo and is emitting massive amounts of radiation in a heavily populated area to do anything about him.
 
2017-10-04 03:07:25 PM  

Smidge204: Thingster: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Cdc+gun+death+stats

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_%281996%29

Bulk statistics are one thing, actually studying the issue of firearm related injury and death, and the underlying factors of such, is another.
=Smidge=


Read the article.

They're allowed to collect and analyze data, but not advocate gun control.  So they can collect the data and process it in a vacuum, and release it to third parties to write the reports.

So the data is there, a third party just needs to use it.
 
2017-10-04 03:10:01 PM  

Dafatone: LL316: I read this yesterday and thought it brought up some interesting points.  However, one thing I don't remember it bringing up is that America is filled with Americans and Americans are the problem.  Remove them from the equation and guns aren't as much of an issue (at least when compared to other developed nations).  But since we can't do that (although I'm sure the Natives wouldn't mind), there's really only 1 thing to do.  That thing is to not allow someone to purchase 33 farking guns, some with the ability to turn into full automatic, in a 12 month period.

Didn't he only use one gun in the shooting?


I'm not sure we know for certain, but he had like 24 in the room with him.  In order to shoot that many people in that short a time, he probably had them loaded and ready to go and shot until the bullets ran out of 1 and moved on to the next...then eventually reloading.  Admittedly that's armchair analysis, but I think it's more logical than reloading after every empty clip when you have 23 other guns with you right there.
 
2017-10-04 03:10:28 PM  

Thingster: Smidge204: Thingster: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Cdc+gun+death+stats

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_%281996%29

Bulk statistics are one thing, actually studying the issue of firearm related injury and death, and the underlying factors of such, is another.
=Smidge=

Read the article.

They're allowed to collect and analyze data, but not advocate gun control.  So they can collect the data and process it in a vacuum, and release it to third parties to write the reports.

So the data is there, a third party just needs to use it.


You don't see any problem with legislating the conclusions of scientific studies? Would you support a law banning the EPA from recommending reductions in pollutants as a resultvof the data they collect and analyze?
 
2017-10-04 03:14:12 PM  

SoupGuru: Oh, it's definitely a culture thing. We have a culture of fear, mistrust, exaggerated individuality, and, most disturbingly, the notion that guns are tools that can solve a wide variety of problems.


THIS. This is the issue... guns are just machines. Wood, metal, plastic, chemicals. But it's not the gun that is as dangerous as the desire to have, to use, to romanticize. Just this morning I was listening to NPR and they had yet another red state federal republican legislator discussing what happened in Las Vegas. In discussions on gun control I know that at least once the phrase "personal protection" will come up regardless of the context of the conversation, so I usually count how many times it does in an interview. Just a fun little mental exercise.

This one used a new catchphrase - "protection for the weak against the strong" - and did so 19 times in a three minute and 30 second conversation as part of his answers to 12 questions. Your premise that fear and mistrust is part of this mess was fully apparent in his responses and pontification, and I suspect that for whatever reason they lie behind not just the proliferation but the fetishization of guns.

It also made me think to ask "What are these people afraid of here that people are not afraid of in other places?" It's not the machine, it's the mindset.
 
2017-10-04 03:16:02 PM  

Archidude: Thingster: Smidge204: Thingster: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Cdc+gun+death+stats

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_%281996%29

Bulk statistics are one thing, actually studying the issue of firearm related injury and death, and the underlying factors of such, is another.
=Smidge=

Read the article.

They're allowed to collect and analyze data, but not advocate gun control.  So they can collect the data and process it in a vacuum, and release it to third parties to write the reports.

So the data is there, a third party just needs to use it.

You don't see any problem with legislating the conclusions of scientific studies? Would you support a law banning the EPA from recommending reductions in pollutants as a resultvof the data they collect and analyze?


The legislation was in response to the head of the CDC insinuating he was going to make a public health case for gun control prior to actually analyzing the data.

And in reality, what's wrong with an organization doing data collection and analysis, then releasing the information to a peer group for review and report compilation? Seems like a good way to get more eyes on the data and avoid individual prejudices and preconceptions.  Isn't transparency a good thing?
 
2017-10-04 03:18:50 PM  
LadySusan: Yep. Surprisingly, I came to similar conclusions after watching Bowling for Columbine. My takeaway was that Canada is also awash in guns, but they have far fewer shootings.

Awash with hunting and sport long guns perhaps.  Handguns are an entirely different story.  Regardless of the type of gun, the law states that they are trigger locked, in a safe, and the ammunition is in a separate locked safe.  I may be a but hazy on the details as I don't own any myself.

Handguns in particular are difficult to deal with, should you even be able to get a license, and must be registered.   They can be in either the aforementioned safe, or on a range.   Anywhere else and you are farked if found with one.   Found with one in your car, in a safe or not, unless you're travelling to the range or home from the range will result in all your guns taken away for life.  The same holds true for long guns if you aren't heading out on a hunt.

Magazine/clip/bullet holder thingies are also restricted, I believe it's either 5 or 8 capacity.

I am not sure if there is a limit to the number of firearms an individual is allowed to have, but I would have no problem with that either unless you had a 'collectors' permit.

There are things that can be done, doing nothing with result in the status quo and more senseless deaths.
 
2017-10-04 03:18:53 PM  

hubiestubert: What we need isn't so much to reduce the number of guns...but the reasons that people turn to violence. If people don't have reasons to turn to violence, then the issues come down to gun safety and safe storage. And the best way to reduce violence in this country ISN'T to limit the flavor of violence, but make violence not a go to solution.

Education, health care--physical and mental--and economic opportunities and fairness reduce the reasons that folks will turn to violence. Folks who feel safe, who have hope for their future, who aren't worried about their loved ones' futures, and who feel like they can and are contributing to society, they don't tend to race for arms to resolve issues. Unless it might be that pesky woodchuck in the garden again.

But that's not a sexy solution. It's not something that is going to get a lot of fanfare, and people don't see the direct correlation with improving education and social justice and economic fairness and a drop in violence, because it is a slower, less showy process. Simple health care and mental health care--and that includes destigmatizing actually getting help when you need it--put a great deal of less stressors on folks--and that might actually save a few marriages as well. In the realm of greater economic opportunity, again, the benefits range wide, and not only can we give folks hope for a future, and to participate in it, we might actually see folks sticking together, joining with greater participation in their communities, and with that increased stake, take measures to care for that community better.

But they're not the sexy solutions. They're not "easy" like a "vote for this law to STICK IT to the Repugs!" Or keep it down to STICK IT THE LIBS! And people don't have the time it seems to think of longer term solutions, and the harder choices. Health care reform and that includes mental health care and working like Hells to get folks help that they desperately need, that takes some time and effort. Economic oppo ...


You win again sir...
 
2017-10-04 03:19:38 PM  

rewind2846: SoupGuru: Oh, it's definitely a culture thing. We have a culture of fear, mistrust, exaggerated individuality, and, most disturbingly, the notion that guns are tools that can solve a wide variety of problems.

THIS. This is the issue... guns are just machines. Wood, metal, plastic, chemicals. But it's not the gun that is as dangerous as the desire to have, to use, to romanticize. Just this morning I was listening to NPR and they had yet another red state federal republican legislator discussing what happened in Las Vegas. In discussions on gun control I know that at least once the phrase "personal protection" will come up regardless of the context of the conversation, so I usually count how many times it does in an interview. Just a fun little mental exercise.

This one used a new catchphrase - "protection for the weak against the strong" - and did so 19 times in a three minute and 30 second conversation as part of his answers to 12 questions. Your premise that fear and mistrust is part of this mess was fully apparent in his responses and pontification, and I suspect that for whatever reason they lie behind not just the proliferation but the fetishization of guns.

It also made me think to ask "What are these people afraid of here that people are not afraid of in other places?" It's not the machine, it's the mindset.


That's not necessarily a new idea. There's a dude that goes around the country (and has for some time) and speaks about sheepdogs and wolves. Responsible gun owners/military/cops being the sheepdogs and violent criminals being the wolves. In essence, in his mind, it is the responsibility of the sheepdogs to protect everyone from wolves.
 
2017-10-04 03:22:44 PM  
Heretic proposes that gun legislation be based on the ability to prevent deaths rather than to hurt the feelings of gun nuts

Uh, saving lives is what they're for. The ammosexuals get triggered all on their own because muh freedoms
 
2017-10-04 03:23:27 PM  

Thingster: Archidude: Thingster: Smidge204: Thingster: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Cdc+gun+death+stats

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_%281996%29

Bulk statistics are one thing, actually studying the issue of firearm related injury and death, and the underlying factors of such, is another.
=Smidge=

Read the article.

They're allowed to collect and analyze data, but not advocate gun control.  So they can collect the data and process it in a vacuum, and release it to third parties to write the reports.

So the data is there, a third party just needs to use it.

You don't see any problem with legislating the conclusions of scientific studies? Would you support a law banning the EPA from recommending reductions in pollutants as a resultvof the data they collect and analyze?

The legislation was in response to the head of the CDC insinuating he was going to make a public health case for gun control prior to actually analyzing the data.

And in reality, what's wrong with an organization doing data collection and analysis, then releasing the information to a peer group for review and report compilation? Seems like a good way to get more eyes on the data and avoid individual prejudices and preconceptions.  Isn't transparency a good thing?


So we need to legislate any tine an individual adminatrator suggests something you don't like.

What if someone in the peer group once said something you don't like? Do we legislate that the peer group can't draw conclusions from the data ? Or should the peer groyp be assembled of individuals the NRA  has deemed acceptable to them?
 
2017-10-04 03:28:43 PM  

iheartscotch: rewind2846: SoupGuru: Oh, it's definitely a culture thing. We have a culture of fear, mistrust, exaggerated individuality, and, most disturbingly, the notion that guns are tools that can solve a wide variety of problems.

THIS. This is the issue... guns are just machines. Wood, metal, plastic, chemicals. But it's not the gun that is as dangerous as the desire to have, to use, to romanticize. Just this morning I was listening to NPR and they had yet another red state federal republican legislator discussing what happened in Las Vegas. In discussions on gun control I know that at least once the phrase "personal protection" will come up regardless of the context of the conversation, so I usually count how many times it does in an interview. Just a fun little mental exercise.

This one used a new catchphrase - "protection for the weak against the strong" - and did so 19 times in a three minute and 30 second conversation as part of his answers to 12 questions. Your premise that fear and mistrust is part of this mess was fully apparent in his responses and pontification, and I suspect that for whatever reason they lie behind not just the proliferation but the fetishization of guns.

It also made me think to ask "What are these people afraid of here that people are not afraid of in other places?" It's not the machine, it's the mindset.

That's not necessarily a new idea. There's a dude that goes around the country (and has for some time) and speaks about sheepdogs and wolves. Responsible gun owners/military/cops being the sheepdogs and violent criminals being the wolves. In essence, in his mind, it is the responsibility of the sheepdogs to protect everyone from wolves.


Dave Grossman, author of, "On Killing".

His "Sheepdog Theory" is summed up here: http://mwkworks.com/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html

There's some structural issues with the theory and it doesn't hold up universally, but the general concept of some people being willing to run towards danger to help, some people being essentially helpless in crisis situations, some people being simple predators, and a desire to ensure the first group has the capacity to do so while taking away the latter group's ability to prey on the middle group is sound.

Heraclitus of Ephesus said something similar as far back as ~525 BC.
 
2017-10-04 03:33:51 PM  
Quick search says she was an "atheist" that converted to Catholicism.  And now she claims she was for gun control, but 'the numbers' changed her mind -- without really address what the numbers were *and* attacking stawmen motives of gun control advocates.  This column was pretty nonsensical.   I've seen this pattern plenty of times.   She's angling to cash in on the right wing book market.  And she will.
 
2017-10-04 03:35:48 PM  

hubiestubert: What we need isn't so much to reduce the number of guns...but the reasons that people turn to violence.


People turn to violence as a means of conflict resolution. It's easy, and sometimes even effective in some degree.

Your remarks seem focused on reducing a particular sort of underlying basis for conflict. The variety of basis in conflicts might be examined more broadly.

Gun control is about making violence less proximately easy; there may be other (more difficult) ways to make it less easy. There also may be other preferable means of conflict resolution that can be made easier, to make it more likely people will alternately resort to those.

Stricter sentence proposals are about making violence more costly in the long run; last I heard, this wasn't very effective.

Thingster: They're allowed to collect and analyze data, but not advocate gun control. So they can collect the data and process it in a vacuum, and release it to third parties to write the reports.


The Dickey Amendment is largely treated by the CDC administrative folk as a prohibition on data gathering and descriptive analysis of potentially correlated factors as well.
 
2017-10-04 03:35:57 PM  

Archidude: Thingster: Archidude: Thingster: Smidge204: Thingster: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Cdc+gun+death+stats

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_%281996%29

Bulk statistics are one thing, actually studying the issue of firearm related injury and death, and the underlying factors of such, is another.
=Smidge=

Read the article.

They're allowed to collect and analyze data, but not advocate gun control.  So they can collect the data and process it in a vacuum, and release it to third parties to write the reports.

So the data is there, a third party just needs to use it.

You don't see any problem with legislating the conclusions of scientific studies? Would you support a law banning the EPA from recommending reductions in pollutants as a resultvof the data they collect and analyze?

The legislation was in response to the head of the CDC insinuating he was going to make a public health case for gun control prior to actually analyzing the data.

And in reality, what's wrong with an organization doing data collection and analysis, then releasing the information to a peer group for review and report compilation? Seems like a good way to get more eyes on the data and avoid individual prejudices and preconceptions.  Isn't transparency a good thing?

So we need to legislate any tine an individual adminatrator suggests something you don't like.

What if someone in the peer group once said something you don't like? Do we legislate that the peer group can't draw conclusions from the data ? Or should the peer groyp be assembled of individuals the NRA  has deemed acceptable to them?


When a person of science says they're going to collect data to prove their hypothesis, they need smacked down.

Should it have been legislated? Probably not, but it shouldn't have even come up to be legislated since the man of science never should have said that he was going to go outside the ethical bounds of science to prove a theory.

So the CDC can still collect and analyze the data, they just can't produce white papers on gun control.  And really, I don't have much issue with that because of the whole D in CDC because I'm not a fan of mission creep, either.
 
Displayed 50 of 111 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report