@hightor,
Quote:That was a good article; I don't disagree with her statistical analysis and her conclusion that there's very little we can actually do is not difficult for me to understand. As many have said many times, the barn doors have been left open too long and even if we stopped selling firearms today there'd still be 300 million of them out there, some of them surely in the hands of psychopaths.
But you can't blame people for looking primarily at the hardware end of the relationship versus actually trying to change human behavior.
First of all, thank you for taking it seriously and not dismissing it out of hand as so many others have.
Well, yes I can (blame people) if they are following a dead end that will infringe on Americans' Constitutional rights, and in the process keep spreading misinformation.
Changing human behavior is very difficult and takes a lot of time. Progressives are far too impatient for change to happen gradually over time, even though that is the best for which we can hope.
Quote:On paper it seems sensible to restrict access to particular types of weapons, availability of particular kinds of ammunition, and number of guns a consumer can buy at a time — much easier than monitoring and controlling the emotional balance of every individual gun owner.
Just because something seems sensible (even if it's on paper) doesn't mean it is. This the very sort of thing the author is saying she does has turned away from.
Quote:While rightists and NRA gunbunnies were heartened by the author's rather bleak conclusions —
That is unfair.
The author has come to the conclusion that a lot of conservatives already came to which is, as trite as it may now seem, guns don't kill people; people with guns kill people. The problem is the people who use guns to maliciously hurt other people, not the guns. Even if guns were erased from the face of the earth do you think women would no longer be abused, that people would not take their own lives; that gangbangers wouldn't find a way to kill each other?
You could argue that maybe less woman would die, fewer people would kill themselves, and fewer gang members would be murdered, but that's if guns were wiped from the face of the earth, and even then the numbers of those saved would be statistically insignificant.
Of course, we will hear "One child shot on a playground is one too many!" As if anyone actually thinks there is an acceptable number of murdered children, or that is actually possible to eliminate the murder of children with a law of prohibition. We already have laws that prohibit the murder of children and it still happens far, far too often. Outlawing guns altogether won't do the trick, and here's where self-righteous anti-gun nuts reveal that their's is simply the passion of partisanship. A playground massacre is without question a horrific event, but is it really that much more horrific than a thousand times the number of individual children being beaten to death, scalded to death, abandoned and starved to death or sexually abused to death or near-death? The MSM doesn't even cover all of the deaths of individual children ("It's local news!") but there is a mass shooting and "Oh the humanity! Why can't we stop this! It's the evil NRA and right-wing gun nuts!"
Quote:Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections.
Couldn't be truer, but it's too difficult. Much easier to scream about gun control and demand laws that have no chance of being passed because it's good political ammo, and partisans just keep falling for the ruse.
If Democrats had any balls, they would follow Michael Moore's suggestion and move to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Will they? Never! Instead, they will go on and on about how the GOP is owned by the NRA and encourage nit-wits like Olivier to argue that NRA members need to be massacred. Eventually, this will blow over, replaced by torrid headlines about Trump and his Russian connection and the Dems will be quite happy. They will have milked the tragedy for all it was worth and not been forced to put their seat on the line by going after the 2nd Amendment...and so, so many of you will forgive them.
Quote:— it might be worth pointing out that more restrictive gun laws, even if not completely effective at preventing all gun violence, send an important social message. They indicate society's disapproval of types of behavior. The glamorization of gun culture, the sheer ubiquity of guns in our movies, TV shows, and on the streets, and the preoccupation with killing human beings in general needs to be dialed back. Over the past thirty years the gun lobby and the gun industry have worked assiduously to portray firearms as little more than fashion accessories, badges of patriotism not much different than American flag lapel buttons. Introducing a few restrictions would at least signify that we reject the "wild west" model for our neighborhoods and that the glorification of firearms — "gun culture" — is, well, an adolescent preoccupation with power and delusory "freedom".
It's also worth pointing that this is an absolutely terrible suggestion. You don't change the culture with laws. It's a horrible suggestion and it won't work. There are a ton of people in this country who think there is too much of a "free sex" culture. Would it be OK for them to use
ineffective laws on pornography or the movies or TV to
send a social message? You are suggesting imposing your view of the American culture on others and you would never stand for it in reverse.
Quote:While Nate Silver's organization publishes great statistical research and Libresco makes good points, it's never good to base your conclusions on one study that you happen to agree with. There are other peer-reviewed studies which have come to slightly different conclusions about the efficacy of gun control.
Quote:In a comprehensive review of firearm-control legislation worldwide, we identified a range of studies examining the association between firearm-related laws and firearm deaths. Three general observations emerge from this analysis:
1) The simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries;
2) some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths;
3) challenges in ecological design and the execution of studies limit the confidence in study findings and the conclusions that can be derived from them.
What Do We Know About the Association Between Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Injuries?
These are indeed only
slightly different conclusions and not of much worth in changing the discussion.
By all indications, you are a reasonable man with a good heart. That, in an of itself, doesn't mean you can't question the dogma you are inclined to accept, just because it seems sensible on paper. It also should also prohibit you from impugning the character and motives of those who don't agree with you.
This is a complex issue with no easy answer.
How different are so-called gun-nuts who resist any restriction on gun ownership from their counterparts on the abortion front who resist any and all restrictions on abortion?
Again, thanks for the serious discourse.
