The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

american liberals have been far too reasonable for far too long. it encourages conservatives to stake extreme positions which they defend tooth and nail. this results in a "moderate" middle ground that tilts extremely conservative. as a result, i'm sick of starting from a position of fair-minded compromise. no private gun ownership in america. confiscate them all. criminalize and heavily penalize firearm ownership, trading and manufacture. let the gun nuts beg the sane people for piddling concessions.

Quoting this in full. Click through to see all the original links.

The statistics don't lie: guns kill thousands of American children every year. It is an epidemic of slaughter unparalleled in any other industrialized democracy, yet nothing is done. After every fresh massacre the public becomes further desensitized to the violence even as we are told we cannot and should not talk about the reasons why thousands of our children continue to die violent, bloody and needless deaths. American gun deaths are unique in their inability to generate political action: no one seemed to care much about the politicization of the deaths at Pearl Harbor or the World Trade Center. Those thousands of needless deaths required major political action. But the needless deaths of thousands of children at the barrel of a gun barely registers a mention from elected officials.

Why is this? One reason is that the National Rifle Association has a powerful lobby. That's the story we are often told, at any rate. But it turns out that the NRA isn't remotely as powerful as their mythmaking claims. The NRA wasted $11 million attempting to defeat the President in 2012, and a full two-thirds of the incumbents who lost their House seats were backed by the NRA. The NRA boost to a candidate this election amounted to less that 2% of the vote if that. So whence comes this incredible lobbying power in the face of which the nation is collectively paralyzed in addressing the deaths of thousands of our children (and many more adults) every single year?

The evidence seems to point to the desire by both political parties to cater to exurban and rural white men who are deeply committed to gun culture. The vast majority of the opposition to commonsense firearms control comes from this group. The Republican Party cannot win without them, and the Democratic Party is still loathe to give them up entirely. The demographics of the country have shifted, but not far enough for Democrats to blithely consign themselves to losing the "bubba" vote.

But why do exurban and rural white men care so much about this issue? Most of them don't actually hunt for sport, and hunting rifles aren't on the radar for gun control, anyway. Fear that hunting will be outlawed cannot explain it. There is a lot of talk among the Tea Party crowd about the "defense of liberty" that undergirds the rationale for the Second Amendment in the first place. But while that sort of talk is satisfying and high-minded for self-styled modern patriots, the reality belies the fantasy: the vast majority of these men don't actually see themselves gunning down police and soldiers in a hypothetical Communist state takeover, and the puny small arms in question wouldn't begin to stand up to the might of America's high-tech standing army. Being an insurgent in Iraq or Afghanistan is a dangerous occupation at best fueled in part by anger at outside invaders, and it's highly unlikely that these passionate gun advocates are hedging against a future as guerrilla warriors shooting American soldiers from duck blinds.

But it doesn't take much time reading through conservative websites to see what actually drives the desperate need to own high-priced killing machines. There is a vast, festering paranoia in conservative circles about the "looters" and "parasites" coming to take their hard-earned material possessions in the supposed coming debt-fueled collapse of society. There is continual worry about some dark-skinned assailant attempting to enter their home and potentially steal their property. Radio shock jocks react to stories about carjacking by demanding that more people carry guns in order to litter the streets with more "dead urban thugs." There are large segments of the population that want nothing more than to eliminate subsidies to the poor and then await the desperate masses who will supposedly come to their doorstep with a lead welcome. Ron Paul and Alex Jones' legions of followers have been told to "defend your supplies from those who refused to prepare" for the supposed riots coming when EBT cards are canceled. It's doesn't take much investigation of conservative media consumer attitudes to discover that these sentiments are shockingly widespread.

It sounds too awful to contemplate, but reality is a cruel mistress. It's painfully obvious what motivates the rabidly pro-gun base: a deep-seated desire to unwind the social contract and cleanse undesirables who are allegedly stealing their tax dollars. These murderous fear-fueled fantasies have no bearing on any events that will actually take place in the real world (except possibly some decades on by climate change induced migrations), but they are strong motivators nonetheless. Unfortunately, both political parties are also motivated to hold onto the voters who carry these nightmarish visions in their heads.

What this functionally means is that we as a nation are openly allowing thousands of our children to die every year so that certain segments of the population can role-play racist murder fantasies. It's not awful to admit that this is true. It's awful that it's happening, and that we as a nation must pay the price for it with the torn and mutilated bodies of our innocence and our future.

That's a really dumb broad brush description

There are large segments of the population that want nothing more than to eliminate subsidies to the poor and then await the desperate masses who will supposedly come to their doorstep with a lead welcome.

Based on the scary right-wing gun nuts I see on FB, seems sadly tom.

gah! I mean on the OTM - stupid spellcheck

Again, this whole thing might be more effectively talked about if people like the author of that article remembered that there are vast swathes of liberal democrat gunowners throughout the middle of the country.

well tbf those liberal gun owners aren't typically the sort that think we should have guns to prepare for the collapse of society, and if they are, they tend to be suspicious of cops, not criminals

Yeah exactly, that's why I'm saying th

approaching the argument by saying tht gunowners are all racists and hate poor people is stupid

approaching this as an exurban/rural vs. rest of country issue isn't, tho

I took it to mean that the racist "bubba" bloc has a disproportionate influence on gun legislation, not that gun owners are, en masse, racist paranoiacs

the few gun owners i knew were probably liberals and probably not racists and probably didn't hate poor people but they were almost certainly crazy.

there's a big contingent of libertatrian gun enthusiasts, too. and don't forget the hunter thompson-like crazies. xp

ultimately the big reason to believe that there's hope for the future of gun control is not cause someone like milo is gonna change his mind but because the bloc he's in is going to be smaller as fewer and fewer people live in rural areas

https://blogs.commons.georgetown.edu/ket37/files/Gun-Ownership-and-Opinion-in-the-United-States.pdf

I forgot about roger a enjoying the smell of his guns as one reason it's ok to have them out on the streets

http://www.terrierman.com/kerryhunt.bmp

"Bagged me a liberal."

I'd like to think that banning handguns and making the acquisition of other guns (shotguns, hunting/target rifles) really, really difficult/onerous would do much to lower gun deaths of the day-to-day variety. if you're a shooter like milo, or a hunter, then who cares if you have to wait possibly months to get a gun---hunting season is limited to certain seasons, and target shooting is purely recreational.

nb this would do little to curb horrific mass shootings plotted well in advance, but statistically these aren't how most ppl are killed by guns. mass shootings with legally acquired weapons are a byproduct of our cultural fascination with the_gun (plus availability obv), and since we can neither ban or confiscate all guns everywhere (we srsly cannot do this, guys, for really obvious practical reasons), efforts should be made to figure out who spree killers are and how we, as a culture, produce them.

banning gun swaps and private gun sales would help, too, but id wager the latter would never fly for reasons that for some ppl are external to "gun control"

fact: I bought a cd-r from RA (before I knew of his uh views) and it came wrapped in lightly oiled gun paper

why not just make it easier for victims to sue and recover damages from everyone on the chain that provided the guns?

lawsuits aren't the answer, i think

enforced mass sterilization might be

dealers can pay into an insurance pool that will give payouts in the event a gun was sold to a sketchy buyer; private person-to-person sales could result in unlimited liability. this aligns industry interests with the public against irresponsible sales of weapons, giving them higher margins.

industry interests are irresponsible sales of weapons

the tobacco industry is fighting marijuana legalization -- imagine the gun industry fighting against assault weapons, non-dealer sales, and making guns generally more expensive.

where's al and Jesse on this one

the gun industry is not going to fight the gun industry

if one segment of the gun industry stands to make much more money as a result of fighting the other segment, why wouldn't they?

as an alternative to actual gun control? no, because that would be stupid.

if the idea is to actually limit gun deaths by limiting access to guns, then wouldn't it make more sense to...limit access to guns? introducing liability seems perverse to me, for some reason. I suppose it could have a chilling effect on gun sales (ppl wouldn't sell for fear of getting sued), but no one would go for it, it's nonsensical. what if a hunter got robbed, and then the stolen gun was used in a murder? would it make any sense to sue the hunter and the gun dealer for damages? what legal standard would you use? and how could that no then be applied to cars, bricks, household cleaners? even if you made exceptions for gun deaths only, at some point it would be unethical to prosecute incidental participants (trucking company that carried the cargo, landlord of the gun store, etc)

I get what you're going for, but it would just drive gun sales even further underground, IMO.

xp

When the debates over we can quietly pry the guns out of their cold dead hands and melt them down, problem solved.

great ILX gun control debate...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
for me to poop on

there are no segments in the gun industry, is the thing. virtually all the big companies that make hunting rifles also make AR-15s and handguns and so on

also "sketchy buyers" are impossible to identify at the point of sale, this is why we should have application processes. plus, the newtown shooter basically stole his guns from his mom. where does the liability fall there?

well your logic is 'with tricky changes to liability we can decrease the total amount of money spent on guns, and the gun industry wouldn't fight/notice that at exactly the same rate that they fight/notice limiting access to guns'

it's like yeah, if oil companies were liable for being sued for global warming, we could def be living in a world where their interests were better correlated w/ ours. but they're not gonna just 'not notice' that they're being set up like that and a lawsuit based solution isn't any easier or more practical than gas taxes or laws.

xp

and just on a practical level 'more lawsuits' is not something any american anywhere wants to hear as a solution

If a hunter got robbed and failed to report it stolen, i don't think it's unreasonable to make him liable.
if a car was sold to a dude who all through the test drive kept muttering how he was going to play GTA in real life and actually did it, I don't think it's unreasonable to make the dealer liable. If a gun store has a reputation for selling to just anyone, I don't think it's unreasonable to make the landlord liable. There's always been an ideal in law of what a "reasonable" person might do -- why should these instances be any different?

There's less of a political hurdle to basically streamline a legal process -- does any legislation actually need to be involved?

yes

I'm wondering how the NRA can be that powerful, lobbies shouldn't be that influent in the first place.

nb this would do little to curb horrific mass shootings plotted well in advance, but statistically these aren't how most ppl are killed by guns. mass shootings with legally acquired weapons are a byproduct of our cultural fascination with the_gun (plus availability obv), and since we can neither ban or confiscate all guns everywhere (we srsly cannot do this, guys, for really obvious practical reasons), efforts should be made to figure out who spree killers are and how we, as a culture, produce them.

sorry i'm already like a broken record on the other thread with this, but have you checked out the Australian experience with mass shootings pre- and post 1996?

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.full

"if oil companies were liable for being sued for global warming, we could def be living in a world where their interests were better correlated w/ ours"
let's start with making them fully liable for oil spills, and we can build on the insurance pool to cover other externalities.

if you're a shooter like milo, or a hunter,

I like how killing animals (primarily) for fun is nowhere near the top of the list of why guns are shitty.

let's start with making them fully liable for oil spills, and we can build on the insurance pool to cover other externalities.

I'm not opposed to this kinda thinking but I'm opposed to the idea that it's an easier or more political viable path than any other

politically

Shooting birds is pretty lame and cowardly. Why not just go around kicking kittens or something?

"does any legislation actually need to be involved?"
"yes"

like what, though? can't you bring suits against companies already? have they already put legislative barriers in place making it harder to sue them that require additional legislation to make it easier?

the main reason I think it's easier to go this route is that there are powerful parties (like say the insurance industry) that stand to make a lot of money in looking after the public's interest.

and not that this should come as a surprise to anyone, but the whole BAN ALL GUNS stance, aside from being practically impossible, might only serve to alienate liberal gun owners who would otherwise endorse very strict gun control measures.

I'm cool with no more handguns (which is a stance I haven't always held, see up thread iirc), and arduous application/licensing processes, and basically anything that makes acquiring a gun a pain in the ass. I'm also fine with marginalizing "gun culture." but I think if you approach the gun debate with outright banning and confiscation as the only acceptable outcome, you are, in a small way, as deluded and kinda wrong as strict drug prohibitionists. and maybe that's alright with you, I dunno.

few people need to kill animals to survive, but some (vanishingly few) do, and they live really far away from everyone else, and I think it's okay that that's possible in today's America. but we do actually need to control certain animal populations, and that's a function largely served by amateur hunters who pay for the privilege. the other alternative is ecological degradation, or paying specially certified people to do the job. I'll take the amateurs, and their money, thanks. ppl don't need to plink rounds at the firing range, but I don't care if they do. as a hobby, it seems as weird to me as any other weird hobby. I have plenty of my own.

if we're going to have a National Conversation about gun control (or abortion or taxes or whatever), then I think we need to be reasonable about it. we simply cannot round up 300M firearms in a country this vast without imposing a pretty fearsome police apparatus. we could, however, ban handgun sales, and destroy those that remain as they turn up. etc.

it's a bummer to me that some of the ppl that are all "now is exactly the time to talk about this issue!" are also the least willing to engage in any kind of discussion of gun ownership that isn't predicated on the idea that gun ownership is anything other than creepy and weird. it's like "discussing" the fiscal cliff with a tea partier or boehner or something, it's anything but a discussion.

xp collardio that AUS thing kinda buttresses my point, in a way? the law didn't ban GUNS, it banned guns that shoot real fast and are better suited to shooting people than anything else. and it made it real hard to any other kind of gun. I've already stated that I'm fine with that kind of policy. and again, 700k in a land of 12m is a different thing than 300m in a land of 360m.

I like how killing animals (primarily) for fun is nowhere near the top of the list of why guns are shitty.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:55 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I don't particularly like that you seem unwilling to have any honest engagement with an issue that sorely needs addressing

I get it, you think hunting purely for sport is icky and gross---I'd tend to agree with you, personally. But I'm not ~reviled~ by people I know that go duck hunting a couple times a year, anymore than I am by people that eat a McDonald's cheeseburger a couple times a year.

like what, though? can't you bring suits against companies already? have they already put legislative barriers in place making it harder to sue them that require additional legislation to make it easier?

you can already already bring a suit against the landlord of a building that sold the gun to someone illegally...you would just lose the suit because they did not break any law.

gbx, the 'banning and confiscating' left needs to exist to serve the purpose that the wacko bloc does to the right-wing. 'we need to be reasonable' ignores the fact that the left has been entirely too reasonable on this particular issue.

ok i misunderstood your point then, gbx.

I know several people who live largely on the meat they take from hunting. I'm not willing to pull the trigger on Bambi but it would be hard to argue they're more careless or amoral than anyone who lives on farmed meat - up to and including the most hippie grass-fed organic free range pasture-raised stuff on the market.

lulz at the "bloc I'm in" getting smaller. I'm pretty sure libertarian socialist gun owners who held their nose and voted for Obama (because fuck Mitt Romney) is a rather small 'bloc' to start with.

i'm multi-tasking, which takes a toll on nuance, evidently. xp