Gun Control Debate

[Maria]

Where are you getting your data that the ban seemed to work?
Wikipedia cites multiple studies that say it didn't do much, if any, good at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_A ... egislation

[yovargas]

It's pretty hard to say if there is any correlation but regardless, this graph seems to indicate that things have gotten worse post-ban. That does raise the question of why it was lower pre-ban.

[Maria]

What's changed in the 2000s?

Cell phones irradiating brains and driving people crazy?
Social media isolating people from actual communities?
Environmental poisons muddling people's minds?
Russian meddling?

edit:
And don't forget graphic video game violence!

edit 2:
And mandatory folic acid supplementation in 1998 leads to immune system suppression in 1/3 of the population resulting in all sorts of major ill health things, including increased susceptibility to Lyme disease which can drive people crazy.

edit 3- But not me. I saw a shrink and got myself checked out when I found I had Lyme disease. I'm quite sane, according to a psychologist with a PhD.

edit 4- Aren't you glad?

[Frelga]

I'll look for my sources.

Meanwhile in Florida.

Florida Governor Raises Age Limit For Gun Purchases From 18 To 21 https://t.co/0821y1JXFj

[Dave_LF]

Maria: But those are world-wide phenomena (maybe not Russian meddling. Maybe ), and the problem only exists in the US

[Maria]

Darn, you have a point, Dave.

[Frelga]

Here's Yonatan Zunger's post. He's usually worth reading.

https://plus.google.com/+YonatanZunger/ ... DS3S8zt45c

In the past few weeks, there have been some very interesting (and well-informed) discussions of which kinds of gun laws could and could not pass Constitutional muster. It's been easy to come up with examples of things which either couldn't pass such muster (especially post-Heller, which rather clearly upheld a Constitutional right for an individual to own a handgun), which could pass muster but which are in reality a confusing and questionably followable mess (such as renewing the Assault Weapon Ban), or which would lead to a cascade of problems that would likely leave the entire country a smoking ruin (trying to repeal the Second Amendment via Constitutional convention).

I'd like to toss a further grenade (um... so to speak) into this argument by pointing out a fairly simple legal change which almost certainly would pass Constitutional muster, would not require disassembling the country, and would be both straightforward and (based on what information we have) likely to be highly effective in reducing mass murder without substantially affecting either hunting or self-defense, the two legal pursuits most often cited. It would, of course, be politically very difficult — as gun law changes always are.

The key point is this: While the Second Amendment unquestionably states an individual right to bear arms, statute and case law are quite clear that Congress may (within some reasonably wide scope, subject to strict scrutiny) restrict which types of weapons are owned. For example, 18 USC §922(o) (1986, part of FOPA) makes it "unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun," essentially defined as a fully-automatic weapon. The NFA (1934) imposes all sorts of registration requirements on things like short-barreled shotguns, explosive devices, and so on which effectively limit their possession to people who have been heavily vetted and gone through a tremendous number of hoops — and in fact, it's quite rare that such weapons are used in criminal acts. These laws have been repeatedly upheld by the courts, eg in US v. Miller (1936), which dealt with someone transporting a sawed-off shotgun across state lines.

On the other hand, Heller made it clear that "a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense" — in this case, handguns — violates the Second Amendment. Presumably a prohibition on weapons chosen for the purposes of sport and hunting would meet with the same holding, so for example a ban on shotguns or rifles would be equally unconstitutional.

But between the two extremes, there's a lot of flexibility, and it's legally possible to do something considerably simpler than the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which was basically a list of somewhat arbitrary features of guns that would lead to their being banned.

So here's a simple, modest proposal: Ban the transfer of possession of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns.

The meat of such a law could simply be a carbon copy of 18 USC §922(o) about machineguns. To be meaningfully effective, such a law should not have the sort of grandfather clause that that law does (permitting weapons which were lawfully possessed prior to the law's date to be possessed indefinitely thereafter); instead, it should have a stated date some time after its passage at which time it takes effect, and owners of existing weapons would have that time to either permanently render them non-semiautomatic or get rid of them.

One frequent objection to such laws is that it would be impossible to enforce, either because of a lack of a registry, or because people with such weapons would resist with potentially unlimited violence. The first of these is, I think, a feature rather than a bug; as has been pointed out, a flawed registry would lead to spectacular chaos as people were charged with failing to report and destroy weapons they don't actually have, and so on. The second of these is a simple threat to engage in mass murder rather than obey the law — and on this one, I'd call the bluff. I don't think that most gun owners, and even most owners of semi-automatic rifles, are actually prepared to do that, and the huge majority of such people would think it actively insane to do so and be rather alarmed if their neighbors did.

A second objection is the Heller objection. However, Heller was quite clear that the reason the handgun ban was unconstitutional was that self-defense was a universally recognized and accepted reason for the possession of arms, and that handguns were "overwhelmingly" accepted as being appropriate for that purpose. However, the argument for semiautomatic long arms in this context is far weaker. While today any search for "top hunting rifles" will turn up an AR-15 derivative in its list, those weapons are generally clear outliers on any Top 10; most hunting rifles are bolt- or lever-action. (Really, the presence of semiautomatic weapons on hunting lists is a fairly recent thing) While long arms can be used in defense, the use of semiautomatic long arms in defense is quite a bit rarer, and there are relatively few circumstances in which such weapons are even good ideas for that.

A third objection is that such a law is simply politically infeasible to pass. On this, I'm unconvinced. It's certainly the case that Congress would be very heavily lobbied against such a law, as it has been against every other gun control regulation in the past four decades. However, Congress is subject to other pressures as well, and a public sufficiently up in arms is capable of moving it in other directions. A public assumption that such a law is unpassable, whether or not it is true, serves the purpose of its opponents.

Overall, I would say that people could have arguments about whether such a law should be passed, and whether it's politically feasible to do so — but I'd say it's a fair bet that such a law, if passed, would be Constitutional.

[Maria]

Here's an article on "Why are mass murders so uncommon in Japan?"
https://qz.com/742140/why-are-mass-murd ... -in-japan/

In part it says:

Next-to-nonexistent household gun ownership aside, it could also be argued that Japan’s comparatively communal culture—which places a strong emphasis on “preserving honor,” “avoiding shame,” and generally being honest—may reduce petty crime as well as keep murder rates low. Besides murder, rates of assault and public disorder are much lower in Japan than in other parts of the world. Culturally, getting angry in public in Japan is considered a major faux pas, and only something that children do. The Japanese education system, with its emphasis on collaboration and not just on competition, could be one more reason why the murder rates are so low.

Another explanation may be that drug use in Japan is almost nonexistent and is frowned upon socially. Without the pervasive presence of narcotics, the general mayhem and crime associated with drugs in many other countries is not present. And then there’s also the idea that Japanese society simply rejected violence as a way of approaching problems following the country’s crushing defeat in WWII.

I'd agree with drug use and lack of honor being a problem in the US. Maybe it's as simple as that?

[Frelga]

That reminds of an old joke.

Scientists were studying the causes of heart disease. They compared the lifestyle and rates of disease around the world.

They found that the Japanese have a diet high in fish products and low in red meat and alcohol, and that they have a lower rate of heart disease than the Americans.

The French eat lots of red meat and drink wine, and they have a lower rate of heart disease than the Americans.

The Nepalese practice meditation to control stress and consume little caffeine, and they have a lower rate of heart disease than the Americans.

The Brazilians consume lots of coffee and lead a hectic life, and they have a lower rate of heart disease than the Americans.

And so on.

After reviewing all the data, the scientists concluded that the heart disease is caused by speaking English.


Except the UK, Australia, and Canada all speak English, and they have a lower rate of gun violence than the Americans.

The one thing all those diverse countries have in common? Stricter controls on gun ownership.

[Dave_LF]

I think our high rate of gun ownership is probably sufficient to explain our high rate of gun violence--the US is pretty much right on the ownership-vs-violence trendline in the Vox article--but I'm not sure it's enough to explain the singularly American phenomenon of some nut going to a public place and shooting dozens of people at random.

[Griffon64]

I think that one is explained by something relating to what Maria posted - the United States places a very high premium on individualism and personal freedom. Including the right to possess the means to shoot somebody else's children to death, should you feel the world gone done you wrong. Republican lawmakers are defending that right tooth and nail right now from what I can tell.

[yovargas]

"So here's a simple, modest proposal: Ban the transfer of possession of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns."

I don't understand what this means since the text that follows makes it sound like he means a ban on possession, not a fan on transfer of possession. Am I missing something?

"While today any search for "top hunting rifles" will turn up an AR-15 derivative in its list, those weapons are generally clear outliers on any Top 10; most hunting rifles are bolt- or lever-action."

Based on what Maria is saying, perhaps this isn't true?

[Túrin Turambar]

"So here's a simple, modest proposal: Ban the transfer of possession of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns."

I don't understand what this means since the text that follows makes it sound like he means a ban on possession, not a fan on transfer of possession. Am I missing something?

It could be a typo for 'transfer or possession'. It's an easy one to make, and 'transfer of possession of' is a clunky thing to write.

"While today any search for "top hunting rifles" will turn up an AR-15 derivative in its list, those weapons are generally clear outliers on any Top 10; most hunting rifles are bolt- or lever-action."

Based on what Maria is saying, perhaps this isn't true?

I did some Googling, and it seems to be correct. E.g. Outdoor Life Magazine's 2017 list of best deer hunting rifles on the market now features only one semi-auto (but they do recommend it for killing deer quickly in the sort of scenario Maria describes).

[Frelga]

While I trust Maria for personal experience, I trust Zunger to check his data, especially on a topic where he knows he'll have a fight in the comments.

And I read him to mean ban on transfer OR possession, based on what he says about no grandfather clause.

[RoseMorninStar]

We've had four Japanese foreign exchange students and my daughter spent a summer working (teaching) in Japan. They definitely have a different mindset; a collectiveness that takes into consideration not just honor, but what is good for everyone. Conformity. What is (only?) good for the individual, especially at the expense of others is STRONGLY discouraged. They have a saying "出る釘は打たれる" “The nail that sticks out gets hammered down.” American individuality is about as opposite as I can imagine. Both have pros and cons, especially when taken to the extreme.

[yovargas]

Ok, the "of" typo threw me, I think in part because I was not expecting him to say ban semis since I would consider that very far from a "modest" proposal in our country.

[RoseMorninStar]

I think that one is explained by something relating to what Maria posted - the United States places a very high premium on individualism and personal freedom. Including the right to possess the means to shoot somebody else's children to death, should you feel the world gone done you wrong. Republican lawmakers are defending that right tooth and nail right now from what I can tell.

Sadly, I agree Griffon. :'(

[Frelga]

Meanwhile in Florida...

Fla. lawmakers advance bill that requires 'In God We Trust' to be displayed in schools

The move came the day after the state legislature struck down a measure to consider banning the sale of assault weapons in the wake of a deadly school shooting.

In the same session, lawmakers declared pornography to be a public health risk.

That's a bit of a slap in the face to grieving, frightened children, no?

[Alatar]

This might be overly simplistic, but why don't they legally limit the size of magazines to 3 or 5 shots? This would allow for a second or 3rd quick shot for a hunter if an animal is injured or enraged, but would at least give a window of opportunity to disarm a shooter?

Can someone let me know why this wouldn't work, or isn't being discussed?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Because a large segment of the U.S. population is either insane or brainwashed when it comes to this issue. In my humble opinion, of course.