The Atlas Asylum of absurd/ignorant posts IX

[PSOL]

Gun control has always been racist.

This is true.

[S019]

Gun control has always been racist.

This is true.

This is my main issue with pro-gun leftists claiming to want to improve peoples' lives. You can't improve peoples' lives, if some deranged lunatic shoots everyone dead. Like haven't we seen enough mass shootings to realize maybe...just maybe....guns don't actually belong in the hands of everyday people. Oh, alas, it'll probably take another 10 or 20 years for people to actually come to their senses, this is the single issue that frustrates me so much, because the thinking on it is just so disconnected from reality on the part of the gun advocates, oh well.

[WD]

Gun control has always been racist.

This is true.

This is my main issue with pro-gun leftists claiming to want to improve peoples' lives. You can't improve peoples' lives, if some deranged lunatic shoots everyone dead. Like haven't we seen enough mass shootings to realize maybe...just maybe....guns don't actually belong in the hands of everyday people. Oh, alas, it'll probably take another 10 or 20 years for people to actually come to their senses, this is the single issue that frustrates me so much, because the thinking on it is just so disconnected from reality on the part of the gun advocates, oh well.

Guns do belong in the hands of the people, but anyways, in a country like the United States, taking away all guns is just never going to happen, mass confiscation, given the number of firearms in the United States, is near impossible no matter how much some people may want it. And getting past that, keeping guns out of the hands of the population isn’t necessarily going to stop shootings/violent crime etc...

[Never Made it to Graceland]

Gun control has always been racist.

This is true.

This is my main issue with pro-gun leftists claiming to want to improve peoples' lives. You can't improve peoples' lives, if some deranged lunatic shoots everyone dead. Like haven't we seen enough mass shootings to realize maybe...just maybe....guns don't actually belong in the hands of everyday people. Oh, alas, it'll probably take another 10 or 20 years for people to actually come to their senses, this is the single issue that frustrates me so much, because the thinking on it is just so disconnected from reality on the part of the gun advocates, oh well.

Guns do belong in the hands of the people, but anyways, in a country like the United States, taking away all guns is just never going to happen, mass confiscation, given the number of firearms in the United States, is near impossible no matter how much some people may want it. And getting past that, keeping guns out of the hands of the population isn’t necessarily going to stop shootings/violent crime etc...

So defeatist to say you can never do it so you might as well not try.

Obviously the first step is to drastically curtail the number of guns produced and sold, as that is out of control. If you're in a hole, stop digging.

Then we can start to talk about banning the ownership of the types of guns that have been used to massacre innocent people over the past four decades.

[John Dule]

Gun control has always been racist.

This is true.

This is my main issue with pro-gun leftists claiming to want to improve peoples' lives. You can't improve peoples' lives, if some deranged lunatic shoots everyone dead. Like haven't we seen enough mass shootings to realize maybe...just maybe....guns don't actually belong in the hands of everyday people. Oh, alas, it'll probably take another 10 or 20 years for people to actually come to their senses, this is the single issue that frustrates me so much, because the thinking on it is just so disconnected from reality on the part of the gun advocates, oh well.

Guns do belong in the hands of the people, but anyways, in a country like the United States, taking away all guns is just never going to happen, mass confiscation, given the number of firearms in the United States, is near impossible no matter how much some people may want it. And getting past that, keeping guns out of the hands of the population isn’t necessarily going to stop shootings/violent crime etc...

So defeatist to say you can never do it so you might as well not try.

Obviously the first step is to drastically curtail the number of guns produced and sold, as that is out of control. If you're in a hole, stop digging.

Then we can start to talk about banning the ownership of the types of guns that have been used to massacre innocent people over the past four decades.

The overwhelming majority of gun violence is committed with handguns. Do you intend to ban the ownership of pistols?

[S019]

Gun control has always been racist.

This is true.

This is my main issue with pro-gun leftists claiming to want to improve peoples' lives. You can't improve peoples' lives, if some deranged lunatic shoots everyone dead. Like haven't we seen enough mass shootings to realize maybe...just maybe....guns don't actually belong in the hands of everyday people. Oh, alas, it'll probably take another 10 or 20 years for people to actually come to their senses, this is the single issue that frustrates me so much, because the thinking on it is just so disconnected from reality on the part of the gun advocates, oh well.

Guns do belong in the hands of the people, but anyways, in a country like the United States, taking away all guns is just never going to happen, mass confiscation, given the number of firearms in the United States, is near impossible no matter how much some people may want it. And getting past that, keeping guns out of the hands of the population isn’t necessarily going to stop shootings/violent crime etc...

So defeatist to say you can never do it so you might as well not try.

Obviously the first step is to drastically curtail the number of guns produced and sold, as that is out of control. If you're in a hole, stop digging.

Then we can start to talk about banning the ownership of the types of guns that have been used to massacre innocent people over the past four decades.

The overwhelming majority of gun violence is committed with handguns. Do you intend to ban the ownership of pistols?

Yes

[John Dule]

Gun control has always been racist.

This is true.

This is my main issue with pro-gun leftists claiming to want to improve peoples' lives. You can't improve peoples' lives, if some deranged lunatic shoots everyone dead. Like haven't we seen enough mass shootings to realize maybe...just maybe....guns don't actually belong in the hands of everyday people. Oh, alas, it'll probably take another 10 or 20 years for people to actually come to their senses, this is the single issue that frustrates me so much, because the thinking on it is just so disconnected from reality on the part of the gun advocates, oh well.

Guns do belong in the hands of the people, but anyways, in a country like the United States, taking away all guns is just never going to happen, mass confiscation, given the number of firearms in the United States, is near impossible no matter how much some people may want it. And getting past that, keeping guns out of the hands of the population isn’t necessarily going to stop shootings/violent crime etc...

So defeatist to say you can never do it so you might as well not try.

Obviously the first step is to drastically curtail the number of guns produced and sold, as that is out of control. If you're in a hole, stop digging.

Then we can start to talk about banning the ownership of the types of guns that have been used to massacre innocent people over the past four decades.

The overwhelming majority of gun violence is committed with handguns. Do you intend to ban the ownership of pistols?

Yes

I thought you said you weren't going to respond to my comments anymore. Stop clicking "show post" so often; you're letting me have all the power in this relationship and it isn't healthy.

[Alcibiades]

Gun control has always been racist.

This is true.

This is my main issue with pro-gun leftists claiming to want to improve peoples' lives. You can't improve peoples' lives, if some deranged lunatic shoots everyone dead. Like haven't we seen enough mass shootings to realize maybe...just maybe....guns don't actually belong in the hands of everyday people. Oh, alas, it'll probably take another 10 or 20 years for people to actually come to their senses, this is the single issue that frustrates me so much, because the thinking on it is just so disconnected from reality on the part of the gun advocates, oh well.

Guns do belong in the hands of the people, but anyways, in a country like the United States, taking away all guns is just never going to happen, mass confiscation, given the number of firearms in the United States, is near impossible no matter how much some people may want it. And getting past that, keeping guns out of the hands of the population isn’t necessarily going to stop shootings/violent crime etc...

So defeatist to say you can never do it so you might as well not try.

Obviously the first step is to drastically curtail the number of guns produced and sold, as that is out of control. If you're in a hole, stop digging.

Then we can start to talk about banning the ownership of the types of guns that have been used to massacre innocent people over the past four decades.

The overwhelming majority of gun violence is committed with handguns. Do you intend to ban the ownership of pistols?

Tbh, I’m not sure how achievable that would be in the US, but ideally yes. Handguns are banned outright in the UK and heavily restricted in most other European countries. Unlike shotguns and rifles, I don’t really think there is a legitimate reason to own a handgun.

[Pheurton Skeurto]

Tbh, I’m not sure how achievable that would be in the US, but ideally yes. Handguns are banned outright in the UK and heavily restricted in most other European countries. Unlike shotguns and rifles, I don’t really think there is a legitimate reason to own a handgun.

The dynamics are different in the UK and Europe though. There isn't as prevalent a police violence problem overseas as there is here in the states. The argument that flipped me in favor of gun ownership (though I do support some more stringent regulations like red flag laws, enhanced background checks, and I've heard compelling arguments in favor of a national gun registry but am hesitant about the optics) was that the state cannot own guns while disarming citizens, especially given our present circumstance. Maybe if cops didn't have guns, I'd feel differently.

[Alcibiades]

Tbh, I’m not sure how achievable that would be in the US, but ideally yes. Handguns are banned outright in the UK and heavily restricted in most other European countries. Unlike shotguns and rifles, I don’t really think there is a legitimate reason to own a handgun.

The dynamics are different in the UK and Europe though. There isn't as prevalent a police violence problem overseas as there is here in the states. The argument that flipped me in favor of gun ownership (though I do support some more stringent regulations like red flag laws, enhanced background checks, and I've heard compelling arguments in favor of a national gun registry but am hesitant about the optics) was that the state cannot own guns while disarming citizens, especially given our present circumstance. Maybe if cops didn't have guns, I'd feel differently.

It’s an interesting argument, and I do think the the primary emphasis in the US should be on banning things like AR-15s, not handguns. While US gun culture will never fully go away, it’s a lot more out of hand than it was in the 70s for instance. I do think fewer policemen/women should be armed, although I’m not really sure what could be accomplished by threatening the cops with a gun. It doesn’t help to deescalate the situation, to but it mildly. I think if fewer citizens owned guns, the cops would feel less of a need to resort to deadly force.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

Gun control has always been racist.

This is true.

This is my main issue with pro-gun leftists claiming to want to improve peoples' lives. You can't improve peoples' lives, if some deranged lunatic shoots everyone dead. Like haven't we seen enough mass shootings to realize maybe...just maybe....guns don't actually belong in the hands of everyday people. Oh, alas, it'll probably take another 10 or 20 years for people to actually come to their senses, this is the single issue that frustrates me so much, because the thinking on it is just so disconnected from reality on the part of the gun advocates, oh well.

Guns do belong in the hands of the people, but anyways, in a country like the United States, taking away all guns is just never going to happen, mass confiscation, given the number of firearms in the United States, is near impossible no matter how much some people may want it. And getting past that, keeping guns out of the hands of the population isn’t necessarily going to stop shootings/violent crime etc...

So defeatist to say you can never do it so you might as well not try.

Obviously the first step is to drastically curtail the number of guns produced and sold, as that is out of control. If you're in a hole, stop digging.

Then we can start to talk about banning the ownership of the types of guns that have been used to massacre innocent people over the past four decades.

The overwhelming majority of gun violence is committed with handguns. Do you intend to ban the ownership of pistols?

Production first, and then ownership.

[WD]

Gun control has always been racist.

This is true.

This is my main issue with pro-gun leftists claiming to want to improve peoples' lives. You can't improve peoples' lives, if some deranged lunatic shoots everyone dead. Like haven't we seen enough mass shootings to realize maybe...just maybe....guns don't actually belong in the hands of everyday people. Oh, alas, it'll probably take another 10 or 20 years for people to actually come to their senses, this is the single issue that frustrates me so much, because the thinking on it is just so disconnected from reality on the part of the gun advocates, oh well.

Guns do belong in the hands of the people, but anyways, in a country like the United States, taking away all guns is just never going to happen, mass confiscation, given the number of firearms in the United States, is near impossible no matter how much some people may want it. And getting past that, keeping guns out of the hands of the population isn’t necessarily going to stop shootings/violent crime etc...

So defeatist to say you can never do it so you might as well not try.

Obviously the first step is to drastically curtail the number of guns produced and sold, as that is out of control. If you're in a hole, stop digging.

Then we can start to talk about banning the ownership of the types of guns that have been used to massacre innocent people over the past four decades.

The overwhelming majority of gun violence is committed with handguns. Do you intend to ban the ownership of pistols?

Production first, and then ownership.

Ridiculous. You want to shut down an entire industry and forcibly confiscate material from hundreds of millions of people? And do you think criminals and terrorists who want to commit mass murder wouldn’t stop at nothing to gain access to weapons through illegal means, that they would allow government enforcement and laws to stop them?

[Never Made it to Graceland]

Gun control has always been racist.

This is true.

This is my main issue with pro-gun leftists claiming to want to improve peoples' lives. You can't improve peoples' lives, if some deranged lunatic shoots everyone dead. Like haven't we seen enough mass shootings to realize maybe...just maybe....guns don't actually belong in the hands of everyday people. Oh, alas, it'll probably take another 10 or 20 years for people to actually come to their senses, this is the single issue that frustrates me so much, because the thinking on it is just so disconnected from reality on the part of the gun advocates, oh well.

Guns do belong in the hands of the people, but anyways, in a country like the United States, taking away all guns is just never going to happen, mass confiscation, given the number of firearms in the United States, is near impossible no matter how much some people may want it. And getting past that, keeping guns out of the hands of the population isn’t necessarily going to stop shootings/violent crime etc...

So defeatist to say you can never do it so you might as well not try.

Obviously the first step is to drastically curtail the number of guns produced and sold, as that is out of control. If you're in a hole, stop digging.

Then we can start to talk about banning the ownership of the types of guns that have been used to massacre innocent people over the past four decades.

The overwhelming majority of gun violence is committed with handguns. Do you intend to ban the ownership of pistols?

Production first, and then ownership.

Ridiculous. You want to shut down an entire industry and forcibly confiscate material from hundreds of millions of people? And do you think criminals and terrorists who want to commit mass murder wouldn’t stop at nothing to gain access to weapons through illegal means, that they would allow government enforcement and laws to stop them?

Hell yeah I do. Have you thought about this for more than ten minutes? Dude, if the guns aren't being produced and sold in America, that starts to diminish the supply from the get go.

"Illegal guns" that your criminals and terrorists have their hands on mostly just started out as legal guns bought by American rubes.This myth of a wide-scale criminal operation to replace guns is just an NRA talking point to justify their existence (they are a gun industry lobbying group.)

You also do realize that most people who have guns don't have the manpower or firepower to go up against the entire government, right? I mean, what the f*** are we paying for with a military more expensive than the whole European continent's if we can't bring down Judd Clampett and his closet full of 30-30 Marlins?

But the current status quo of selling millions of guns a year basically without limits is the chief cause of gun violence and our monthly massacres. As I said, if you want to get out of a hole, stop digging.

[Alcibiades]

Gun control has always been racist.

This is true.

This is my main issue with pro-gun leftists claiming to want to improve peoples' lives. You can't improve peoples' lives, if some deranged lunatic shoots everyone dead. Like haven't we seen enough mass shootings to realize maybe...just maybe....guns don't actually belong in the hands of everyday people. Oh, alas, it'll probably take another 10 or 20 years for people to actually come to their senses, this is the single issue that frustrates me so much, because the thinking on it is just so disconnected from reality on the part of the gun advocates, oh well.

Guns do belong in the hands of the people, but anyways, in a country like the United States, taking away all guns is just never going to happen, mass confiscation, given the number of firearms in the United States, is near impossible no matter how much some people may want it. And getting past that, keeping guns out of the hands of the population isn’t necessarily going to stop shootings/violent crime etc...

So defeatist to say you can never do it so you might as well not try.

Obviously the first step is to drastically curtail the number of guns produced and sold, as that is out of control. If you're in a hole, stop digging.

Then we can start to talk about banning the ownership of the types of guns that have been used to massacre innocent people over the past four decades.

The overwhelming majority of gun violence is committed with handguns. Do you intend to ban the ownership of pistols?

Production first, and then ownership.

Ridiculous. You want to shut down an entire industry and forcibly confiscate material from hundreds of millions of people? And do you think criminals and terrorists who want to commit mass murder wouldn’t stop at nothing to gain access to weapons through illegal means, that they would allow government enforcement and laws to stop them?

Hell yeah I do. Have you thought about this for more than ten minutes? Dude, if the guns aren't being produced and sold in America, that starts to diminish the supply from the get go.

"Illegal guns" that your criminals and terrorists have their hands on mostly just started out as legal guns bought by American rubes.This myth of a wide-scale criminal operation to replace guns is just an NRA talking point to justify their existence (they are a gun industry lobbying group.)

You also do realize that most people who have guns don't have the manpower or firepower to go up against the entire government, right? I mean, what the f*** are we paying for with a military more expensive than the whole European continent's if we can't bring down Judd Clampett and his closet full of 30-30 Marlins?

But the current status quo of selling millions of guns a year basically without limits is the chief cause of gun violence and our monthly massacres. As I said, if you want to get out of a hole, stop digging.

Absolutely agree. It’s really depressing to see red avatars repeat inane NRA talking points about gun restrictions. America is the only country where mass shootings are a regular occurrence, and it is the only country with firearms-on-demand. And we’re supposed to believe there’s no link between the two? Give me a break. In countries with harsher gun restrictions, the only criminals with guns are those in organised crime, and they only use their weapons on each other, not ‘civilians’. Random psychos looking to murder schoolkids are going to find it much harder, in fact nigh-on-impossible, to get their hands on weapons of mass murder if sensible gun controls are in place. The other alternative is that one is willing to tolerate mass shootings as a necessary price to pay for...what exactly?

[Torie]

In response to the query above, to save the nation from tyranny, when only patriots with guns can effect that. Oh wait a minute!

[ꙮ]

Chris Christie would be a strong contender: Governor of a Rock-hard blue state, wasn't a pushover by the media/unions, a straight-talker, told it like it was, had good approvals most of his terms, he's Italian (POC).

he's Italian (POC).

WHAT YEAR IS IT

[John Dule]

Hell yeah I do. Have you thought about this for more than ten minutes? Dude, if the guns aren't being produced and sold in America, that starts to diminish the supply from the get go.

"Illegal guns" that your criminals and terrorists have their hands on mostly just started out as legal guns bought by American rubes.This myth of a wide-scale criminal operation to replace guns is just an NRA talking point to justify their existence (they are a gun industry lobbying group.)

You also do realize that most people who have guns don't have the manpower or firepower to go up against the entire government, right? I mean, what the f*** are we paying for with a military more expensive than the whole European continent's if we can't bring down Judd Clampett and his closet full of 30-30 Marlins?

But the current status quo of selling millions of guns a year basically without limits is the chief cause of gun violence and our monthly massacres. As I said, if you want to get out of a hole, stop digging.

Absolutely agree. It’s really depressing to see red avatars repeat inane NRA talking points about gun restrictions. America is the only country where mass shootings are a regular occurrence, and it is the only country with firearms-on-demand. And we’re supposed to believe there’s no link between the two? Give me a break. In countries with harsher gun restrictions, the only criminals with guns are those in organised crime, and they only use their weapons on each other, not ‘civilians’. Random psychos looking to murder schoolkids are going to find it much harder, in fact nigh-on-impossible, to get their hands on weapons of mass murder if sensible gun controls are in place. The other alternative is that one is willing to tolerate mass shootings as a necessary price to pay for...what exactly?

Both of you are engaging in arguments that I know, from experience, are beneath you. You two are capable of more nuance than this (even if CraneHusband doesn't like to show it).

The focus on mass shootings is a red herring. These incidents account for a fraction of a percent of gun deaths in this country. Two thirds of all gun deaths in the US are suicides. Of the remaining 10,000 deaths, the vast majority of victims are young black/Hispanic men in a small handful of cities. It is not enough to say that guns are to blame for these statistics. Gun violence in America is a result of social ills that we will never, ever confront so long as we're distracted by scapegoating gun manufacturers.

So defeatist to say you can never do it so you might as well not try.

The left frequently argues that policies that attempt to actually engage with reality are "defeatist." But it is not "defeatism" to acknowledge that the disarmament of European populations is not a valid blueprint for social policy in America. There are 400 million guns in this country, and the idea that even a wide-scale buyback could possibly put a dent in this number borders on the absurd. The reality is that this will simply drive gun ownership into the black market, making it even more difficult for leftist governments to regulate and track the sale of firearms. The only people who participate in such a buyback will be the most law-abiding citizens in the country. And if you expect to accomplish this by actually sending ATF workers to people's doors to search their homes, be prepared for an outbreak of violence that will dwarf any mass shooting. This is the reality of the situation. You can either accept it and try to craft policy that will address it directly, or you can keep spinning ludicrous fairy-tale ideas of what you think social policy would look like in your glorious utopia. The choice is yours.

[Alcibiades]

Hell yeah I do. Have you thought about this for more than ten minutes? Dude, if the guns aren't being produced and sold in America, that starts to diminish the supply from the get go.

"Illegal guns" that your criminals and terrorists have their hands on mostly just started out as legal guns bought by American rubes.This myth of a wide-scale criminal operation to replace guns is just an NRA talking point to justify their existence (they are a gun industry lobbying group.)

You also do realize that most people who have guns don't have the manpower or firepower to go up against the entire government, right? I mean, what the f*** are we paying for with a military more expensive than the whole European continent's if we can't bring down Judd Clampett and his closet full of 30-30 Marlins?

But the current status quo of selling millions of guns a year basically without limits is the chief cause of gun violence and our monthly massacres. As I said, if you want to get out of a hole, stop digging.

Absolutely agree. It’s really depressing to see red avatars repeat inane NRA talking points about gun restrictions. America is the only country where mass shootings are a regular occurrence, and it is the only country with firearms-on-demand. And we’re supposed to believe there’s no link between the two? Give me a break. In countries with harsher gun restrictions, the only criminals with guns are those in organised crime, and they only use their weapons on each other, not ‘civilians’. Random psychos looking to murder schoolkids are going to find it much harder, in fact nigh-on-impossible, to get their hands on weapons of mass murder if sensible gun controls are in place. The other alternative is that one is willing to tolerate mass shootings as a necessary price to pay for...what exactly?

Both of you are engaging in arguments that I know, from experience, are beneath you. You two are capable of more nuance than this (even if CraneHusband doesn't like to show it).

The focus on mass shootings is a red herring. These incidents account for a fraction of a percent of gun deaths in this country. Two thirds of all gun deaths in the US are suicides. Of the remaining 10,000 deaths, the vast majority of victims are young black/Hispanic men in a small handful of cities. It is not enough to say that guns are to blame for these statistics. Gun violence in America is a result of social ills that we will never, ever confront so long as we're distracted by scapegoating gun manufacturers.

So defeatist to say you can never do it so you might as well not try.

The left frequently argues that policies that attempt to actually engage with reality are "defeatist." But it is not "defeatism" to acknowledge that the disarmament of European populations is not a valid blueprint for social policy in America. There are 400 million guns in this country, and the idea that even a wide-scale buyback could possibly put a dent in this number borders on the absurd. The reality is that this will simply drive gun ownership into the black market, making it even more difficult for leftist governments to regulate and track the sale of firearms. The only people who participate in such a buyback will be the most law-abiding citizens in the country. And if you expect to accomplish this by actually sending ATF workers to people's doors to search their homes, be prepared for an outbreak of violence that will dwarf any mass shooting. This is the reality of the situation. You can either accept it and try to craft policy that will address it directly, or you can keep spinning ludicrous fairy-tale ideas of what you think social policy would look like in your glorious utopia. The choice is yours.

3,000 people died in 9/11. Peanuts compared to the number of people who die each year in America. And yet it still led to a drastic change for billions of people all over the world when they fly, with the airport experience being made much slower and more irritating, but I would argue this was still worth it.

As for overall deaths, even ignoring suicides, the US still has a higher gun homicide rate than most European countries’ overall homicide rate. Crime among disadvantaged inner city youth is hardly a phenomenon unique to the US - you are probably aware of the knife crime epidemic here in London. Yet London still has a far lower murder rate than the US, and I dread to think what would happen if people had easy access to guns here.

I concede that US gun culture means that it will be very difficult to get these statistics down to European levels. However, its current crazy incarnation is a relatively recent phenomenon; 40 years ago gun culture was much less aggressive and out of hand, but the NRA, riding the wave of the ascendant conservative movement, changed all that. Australia, while far from perfect, provides the best comparison to the US. It used to have a fairly ingrained gun culture, but that all changed after harsh gun controls were implemented in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre in 1996. Have a look at this graph. Prior to 1996, Australia had a very similar gun death rate to the US, but it plummeted after a mass effort to reduce the number of guns people had.

The question is, then, do you seriously believe that the current gun situation in America is inevitable? Can nothing be done to reduce homicides and mass shootings? Are the immeasurable harm done by the loss of life and fear caused by these really outweighed by the need for “freedom”? The evidence is overwhelming that gun control works. Measures like banning assault weapons, extensive background checks, and ending the crony capitalism which the gun industry is one of the biggest beneficiaries of (and which should disgust any libertarian) are immediately achievable and effective, and yes, over time, a gradual phasing out of the mass manufacture and sale of guns will be immensely beneficial to America.

Maybe it really is a cultural difference I cannot comprehend, but as an outsider looking in, America’s intransigence on the gun issue due to a grossly over-powerful gun lobby, its lies and the politicians it has bought, refusal to try the slightest thing to end one of the most perverse examples of ‘American exceptionalism’, and desperation to blame everything but the obvious cause for gun violence, is unbelievably depressing.

[John Dule]

3,000 people died in 9/11. Peanuts compared to the number of people who die each year in America. And yet it still led to a drastic change for billions of people all over the world when they fly, with the airport experience being made much slower and more irritating, but I would argue this was still worth it.

Ok, let's look at the actual numbers here. 3,000 people died in the 9/11 attacks. 30,000 people in the US die every year from gunshot wounds, but as I said, 2/3rds of those deaths are suicides. You can argue (as some do) that the availability and efficiency of guns as a method of suicide drives that number up, but I think it is disingenuous at best to include suicides under the category of "gun violence." The number of US gun deaths per year is thus about 11,000.

This is compared to a rate of 38,000 vehicular deaths per year on US highways. Would lowering the speed limit everywhere result in fewer deaths? Would banning alcohol result in fewer drunk driving accidents? Probably. But as I'm sure you understand, freedom involves trade-offs, and society is better served if we direct our attention towards areas where we can do more good. The same is true with regards to guns.

As for overall deaths, even ignoring suicides, the US still has a higher gun homicide rate than most European countries’ overall homicide rate. Crime among disadvantaged inner city youth is hardly a phenomenon unique to the US - you are probably aware of the knife crime epidemic here in London. Yet London still has a far lower murder rate than the US, and I dread to think what would happen if people had easy access to guns here.

It's true that gun violence in the US as a whole exceeds all comparisons in Europe. However when you look at American gun violence broken down by race, White America's gun death rate is essentially identical to the gun violence death rates in European countries. For example, the gun homicide rate per 100,000 citizens is 0.92 among whites in Wisconsin, but 33.53 among blacks! For comparison, this means that Wisconsin's white population experiences almost the same level of gun violence as Canada, while the state's black population experiences gun violence at the same level as Honduras. That is an insane disparity. And by the way, it completely shatters the myth that more guns = more violence. White Americans have far more guns per capita than any European country, but the difference in homicides between white Americans and white Europeans is negligible.

The only conclusion you can reach when looking objectively at the data is that gun violence is a sickness that is relegated almost entirely to specific segments of America. Those segments are middle-aged white men who commit suicide, as well as urban populations of young blacks and Latinos. These are the people who are suffering from gun violence-- one guy with an AR-15 can gun down a classroom full of kids, yes, but the media pays a disproportionate amount of attention to these deaths for the purposes of fearmongering. Mass shootings are exceedingly rare and are responsible for very few of America's gun deaths; if you really want to bring deaths down you must look at where the violence is most prevalent.

[Alcibiades]

This is compared to a rate of 38,000 vehicular deaths per year on US highways. Would lowering the speed limit everywhere result in fewer deaths? Would banning alcohol result in fewer drunk driving accidents? Probably. But as I'm sure you understand, freedom involves trade-offs, and society is better served if we direct our attention towards areas where we can do more good. The same is true with regards to guns.

As I’ve already spelled out, I think the freedom taken away by mass gun ownership (that to live and to live free from fear) is greater than the freedom it permits, but I guess this is a point we’ll have to agree to disagree on.

It's true that gun violence in the US as a whole exceeds all comparisons in Europe. However when you look at American gun violence broken down by race, White America's gun death rate is essentially identical to the gun violence death rates in European countries. For example, the gun homicide rate per 100,000 citizens is 0.92 among whites in Wisconsin, but 33.53 among blacks! For comparison, this means that Wisconsin's white population experiences almost the same level of gun violence as Canada, while the state's black population experiences gun violence at the same level as Honduras. That is an insane disparity. And by the way, it completely shatters the myth that more guns = more violence. White Americans have far more guns per capita than any European country, but the difference in homicides between white Americans and white Europeans is negligible.

The only conclusion you can reach when looking objectively at the data is that gun violence is a sickness that is relegated almost entirely to specific segments of America. Those segments are middle-aged white men who commit suicide, as well as urban populations of young blacks and Latinos. These are the people who are suffering from gun violence-- one guy with an AR-15 can gun down a classroom full of kids, yes, but the media pays a disproportionate amount of attention to these deaths for the purposes of fearmongering. Mass shootings are exceedingly rare and are responsible for very few of America's gun deaths; if you really want to bring deaths down you must look at where the violence is most prevalent.

First of all, you’ve cherry-picked Wisconsin as having a gun homicide rate far below the US average; white Americans are still clearly more likely to be murdered than Europeans.

But that is besides the point. Why should we accept mass gun death among inner city African-Americans? I believe that gun control would go a long way to reducing the terrible situation there, as one of many solutions required.

Even if school shootings are rare, I still think measures to stop them are merited. Law-abiding citizens’ right to own an AR-15 is not as important as stopping a few dozen kids dying each year, in my view. More broadly, I think the gun control measures advocated by mainstream liberals are clearly worth it, according to my view above of the relative considerations of rights and freedoms; that there may or may not be more important pieces of legislation to pass is irrelevant. It’s possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

[John Dule]

This is compared to a rate of 38,000 vehicular deaths per year on US highways. Would lowering the speed limit everywhere result in fewer deaths? Would banning alcohol result in fewer drunk driving accidents? Probably. But as I'm sure you understand, freedom involves trade-offs, and society is better served if we direct our attention towards areas where we can do more good. The same is true with regards to guns.

As I’ve already spelled out, I think the freedom taken away by mass gun ownership (that to live and to live free from fear) is greater than the freedom it permits, but I guess this is a point we’ll have to agree to disagree on.

Well, as a white American I certainly don't live in fear of gun violence. The people who are living in fear are the nonwhite urban residents whose lives have been torn apart by gangs, drugs, and a lack of economic opportunity. Crime and violence are the results of hopelessness; if a person can't reasonably expect that their horrible situation will improve, they will often choose to turn guns on themselves or on others.

I frequently read about migrant rape gangs and terrorists plowing vans into crowds in Britain. But I assume you don't live in fear of those occurrences because, frankly, they're quite rare. The truth is that very few people in America actually have to think about gun violence on a daily basis. But that violence is the symptom of social ills, not the disease itself.

First of all, you’ve cherry-picked Wisconsin as having a gun homicide rate far below the US average; white Americans are still clearly more likely to be murdered than Europeans.

But that is besides the point. Why should we accept mass gun death among inner city African-Americans? I believe that gun control would go a long way to reducing the terrible situation there, as one of many solutions required.

Even if school shootings are rare, I still think measures to stop them are merited. Law-abiding citizens’ right to own an AR-15 is not as important as stopping a few dozen kids dying each year, in my view. More broadly, I think the gun control measures advocated by mainstream liberals are clearly worth it, according to my view above of the relative considerations of rights and freedoms; that there may or may not be more important pieces of legislation to pass is irrelevant. It’s possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Okay, if you don't like the Wisconsin example then we should look at the absolute highest homicide rate among a white population in the US-- Mississippi, with 4.79 deaths per 100,000 white residents. This rate is about the same as the overall US gun homicide rate, which in turn is roughly on par with that of Uruguay. Again, not great. But the black homicide rate in Mississippi is a whopping 28.11 deaths per 100,000! This disparity exists in the US across the board; the truth is that white Americans simply do not experience gun violence anywhere near the rate that black Americans do.

I should note that Wisconsin isn't exactly an outlier here, either. New Jersey, Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, Iowa, Minnesota, and Rhode Island all have gun death rates among white citizens below 1 in 100,000. For a country with as many guns as we have, that is pretty remarkable. The commonality between these states, of course, is that they're all among the most educated and wealthy states in the country, again proving my point: Gun violence is about poverty, not guns.

In any case, I never said that we should "accept mass gun death among inner city African-Americans." I'm merely pointing out a disparity, and how the media ignores that disparity in favor of attention-grabbing headlines. However, I categorically disagree that gun control would be an effective way to combat this problem. People are committing these crimes because they are angry, frustrated, disadvantaged, ignored, and lack opportunity. Whether or not they have guns is simply not going to change this fact. The way to deal with this problem is threefold:

1) End school funding based on property taxes and instead allocate resources at a federal level based on enrollment.
2) Across-the-board amnesty for nonviolent drug offenders. Invest in federally funded rehabilitation and needle exchanges.
3) A negative income tax to supplement the income of the poorest families, and putting an end to the unfair and cruel taxation of the most impoverished Americans.

Now, I'm not entirely against certain gun restrictions, but the ones currently being proposed will not help alleviate inner-city violence for the following reasons.

1) Waiting periods will not alleviate this violence because the guns used in these shootings are almost always legally purchased weapons that have found their way into the black market later on.
2) Assault weapons bans will not alleviate this violence because these shootings are almost always carried out with weapons that would not be covered under such a ban.
3) Mandatory buybacks will not alleviate this violence because no gang members or gun runners are ever going to participate in such a buyback.
4) Gun confiscations will not alleviate this violence because this would involve armed ATF troops marching through black neighborhoods and searching homes. I don't need to tell you how badly this would end.

As for your claim that "it's possible to walk and chew gum at the same time"... lol. Have you seen how dysfunctional this country's government is? Legislative mandates are weak, and yes, they do run out at some point. I could easily name fifty things Biden should focus on before he even breathes a word about gun control. So no-- saving the lives of "a dozen kids each year" is absolutely not worth it if it means that other, better policies go ignored.

[Hammy]

This is compared to a rate of 38,000 vehicular deaths per year on US highways. Would lowering the speed limit everywhere result in fewer deaths? Would banning alcohol result in fewer drunk driving accidents? Probably. But as I'm sure you understand, freedom involves trade-offs, and society is better served if we direct our attention towards areas where we can do more good. The same is true with regards to guns.

Regardless of one's stance on the issue, comparing intentional acts of violence to accidents--many of which result from poor weather that people don't always have the option of not driving in--is intellectually dishonest.

[John Dule]

This is compared to a rate of 38,000 vehicular deaths per year on US highways. Would lowering the speed limit everywhere result in fewer deaths? Would banning alcohol result in fewer drunk driving accidents? Probably. But as I'm sure you understand, freedom involves trade-offs, and society is better served if we direct our attention towards areas where we can do more good. The same is true with regards to guns.

Regardless of one's stance on the issue, comparing intentional acts of violence to accidents--many of which result from poor weather that people don't always have the option of not driving in--is intellectually dishonest.

Deaths are deaths. If 10,000 gun deaths every year mean we should sue the gun industry, then the 38,000 car deaths every year must mean we should sue the car industry.

[Alcibiades]

I frequently read about migrant rape gangs and terrorists plowing vans into crowds in Britain. But I assume you don't live in fear of those occurrences because, frankly, they're quite rare. The truth is that very few people in America actually have to think about gun violence on a daily basis. But that violence is the symptom of social ills, not the disease itself.

This is a completely ridiculous comparison. In 2017, 13 people were killed in vehicle-ramming attacks in the UK, and none since, a fraction of mass shooting deaths in the US in the same period. Vans are also much more difficult to kill 50 people at once with than guns, and have a much wider range of legitimate uses.

Okay, if you don't like the Wisconsin example then we should look at the absolute highest homicide rate among a white population in the US-- Mississippi, with 4.79 deaths per 100,000 white residents. This rate is about the same as the overall US gun homicide rate, which in turn is roughly on par with that of Uruguay. Again, not great. But the black homicide rate in Mississippi is a whopping 28.11 deaths per 100,000! This disparity exists in the US across the board; the truth is that white Americans simply do not experience gun violence anywhere near the rate that black Americans do.

I should note that Wisconsin isn't exactly an outlier here, either. New Jersey, Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, Iowa, Minnesota, and Rhode Island all have gun death rates among white citizens below 1 in 100,000. For a country with as many guns as we have, that is pretty remarkable. The commonality between these states, of course, is that they're all among the most educated and wealthy states in the country, again proving my point: Gun violence is about poverty, not guns.

In any case, I never said that we should "accept mass gun death among inner city African-Americans." I'm merely pointing out a disparity, and how the media ignores that disparity in favor of attention-grabbing headlines. However, I categorically disagree that gun control would be an effective way to combat this problem. People are committing these crimes because they are angry, frustrated, disadvantaged, ignored, and lack opportunity. Whether or not they have guns is simply not going to change this fact. The way to deal with this problem is threefold:

1) End school funding based on property taxes and instead allocate resources at a federal level based on enrollment.
2) Across-the-board amnesty for nonviolent drug offenders. Invest in federally funded rehabilitation and needle exchanges.
3) A negative income tax to supplement the income of the poorest families, and putting an end to the unfair and cruel taxation of the most impoverished Americans.

Now, I'm not entirely against certain gun restrictions, but the ones currently being proposed will not help alleviate inner-city violence for the following reasons.

1) Waiting periods will not alleviate this violence because the guns used in these shootings are almost always legally purchased weapons that have found their way into the black market later on.
2) Assault weapons bans will not alleviate this violence because these shootings are almost always carried out with weapons that would not be covered under such a ban.
3) Mandatory buybacks will not alleviate this violence because no gang members or gun runners are ever going to participate in such a buyback.
4) Gun confiscations will not alleviate this violence because this would involve armed ATF troops marching through black neighborhoods and searching homes. I don't need to tell you how badly this would end.

As for your claim that "it's possible to walk and chew gum at the same time"... lol. Have you seen how dysfunctional this country's government is? Legislative mandates are weak, and yes, they do run out at some point. I could easily name fifty things Biden should focus on before he even breathes a word about gun control. So no-- saving the lives of "a dozen kids each year" is absolutely not worth it if it means that other, better policies go ignored.

Those states you mention also happen to have some of the strictest gun laws in the US. Of course the fact that they are wealthy is a big factor. But I don’t think you can dismiss gun control either.

The reasons you give as to why gun control doesn’t work are all pure speculation based on gut feeling. Evidence from every other country suggests they will. Is it possible they would be uniquely ineffective in the American context? Yes, but there’s no evidence to suggest that, and lots of these measures have such broad support (masked by the outsize influence of the gun lobby) and have such great potential benefits compared to minimal curtailment of freedom that they are absolutely worth a try.

I have already said elsewhere that Biden should focus on other more pressing socioeconomic matters. But when there is the inevitable slew of mass killings that only America seems to be desensitised to among all the countries of the developed world, I absolutely do think he should act, and make this Dem trifecta the first ever to actually have some response to a mass shooting.

One last question: are you opposed to gun control on principle, or is it a pragmatic stance based on America’s specific circumstances? In other words, do you think European countries should loosen their gun laws, in spite of how successful and popular they are?

[WMS]

People are committing these crimes because they are angry, frustrated, disadvantaged, ignored, and lack opportunity. Whether or not they have guns is simply not going to change this fact. The way to deal with this problem is threefold:

1) End school funding based on property taxes and instead allocate resources at a federal level based on enrollment.
2) Across-the-board amnesty for nonviolent drug offenders. Invest in federally funded rehabilitation and needle exchanges.
3) A negative income tax to supplement the income of the poorest families, and putting an end to the unfair and cruel taxation of the most impoverished Americans.

You sure you’re a libertarian?

Oh yeah zoning regulations need massive reform as well to help your proposals along.