Yeah, good luck with that

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

"Can the National Rifle Association ever be defeated? I can’t blame you if you’re thinking “no.” It won again this week, as everyone knew it would. But someday, this dam will break."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/22/nra-corpses-pile-up.html

But will it really? The gun culture is so deeply ingrained into the American psyche, it's enough to just blurt out the words "2nd Amendment" and "Freedom", and the whole discourse instantaneously departs from the domain of reason, and starts being all about emotion.

Even someone who likes to pretend they're a reasonable guy like O'Reilly is eventually compelled to spit out the dumb argument like he did the other night at Colbert's show: You see, you just can't stop bad people doing bad things with guns, and besides, you'll never take people's guns away from them, because that's just how America is.

Is that it? No matter how stupid and worthless the current legislation is, and how much harm befalls these same people because of it, they'd still refuse to do anything about it, just because it's "their way"?

Speaking of doing "something" about it, just for the sake of appearing to do anything... the senators have hailed themselves for unveiling a gun bill that affects... wait for it... 2,700 Americans. Look, there's even the words "gun" and "bipartisan" in the bill's title. What else do you want, you damn liberals?

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

What's interesting about the bills put up in the Senate is that two of them were Republican bills, two Democratic. The Democratic bills failed because of the due process concerns, the Republican bills seemingly because they were too much of a compromise with gun rights. Weird.

Violent crime is down and has been in decline for a long time, as are gun incidents. If we're seeing anything in regards to a correlation between guns/gun rights and crime, it's that the rights have expanded on the state level and we're seeing more guns in the general population during that decline. Going in the opposite direction doesn't make a ton of sense in that context.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Violent crime is down and has been in decline for a long time, as are gun incidents

Oh, it should be all right then.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

And yet, the vast majority of mass shootings in the developed world* firmly remain in the US. If that's what you call an improvement, I dare not imagine what it must have been in previous times.

* I've been hearing the argument that it's "not that bad" compared to the average rates of the world - which of course includes the Third World, particularly terrorism-torn countries like Afghanistan and Iraq. Or cartels-dominated countries like Mexico and Colombia. If you'd like to equate the US to those countries, please be my guest.

This is a classic head-in-sand situation, but of course all of the above is going to fall on deaf ears, so... meh.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Of course we'll have more mass shootings. They're unavoidable unless we're willing to do things that are incompatible with our civil rights guaranteed in the Constitution, and even then, it's no guarantee.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Yep. Enjoy the news.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

But of course! It's either being killed or being un-free. Simple dichotomies are so elegant, they make me feel cosy and warm inside. So warm, I want to kiss the portraits of all the Founding Fathers and light a candle at the altar of Saint Reagan. Or something.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It's more like "maybe be killed but have fewer rights" or "maybe be killed but retain more rights."

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

Hey, the Aussies seem pretty free, prosperous, laid-back and happy people, and they haven't had a mass shooting for ages. Oh, and by the way they do happen to have strict gun laws. But that must be just a coincidence. Or their funny accent.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

If you look at the timeline, though, they rarely had mass shootings anyway. That they overreacted following their rare mass shooting is not an indication that we should overreact following ours.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

The Aussie model won't work in the US. Here's why (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/21/gun-control-debate-mass-shootings-gun-violence).

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

More guns makes people safer. There's a lot of sense in that, when you (don't) think about it (too much).

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

The problem is, the legislative solutions proposed almost always betray a severe lack of any knowledge with regards to guns on the part of those proposing them. We rightly castigate Republicans like Todd Akin who want to legislate abortion when they demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of human reproduction and anatomy ("If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.") Why, then, is it ok for legislators who not only know little about guns, but who believe many demonstrably false things about them, to craft legislation meant to regulate them?

This lack of knowledge (an unwillingness to learn, honestly) is what led to useless laws like the previous "Assault Weapons Ban" that addressed easily bypassed cosmetic features but did nothing to actually address gun violence. What we're seeing are not well-considered proposals based on any form of reality, but knee-jerk rushes to appease constituents by doing "something" without considering whether that something is the right thing, the useful thing. It's what led Senate Democrats to try to use the no-fly list, a list decried by many Democrats for over a decade as a Kafka-esque nightmare, as a way to restrict gun purchases. That does not demonstrate to me a good faith effort to reduce deaths; it demonstrates callous political showmanship with more concern for demonstrating ideological bona fides in an election year than for actual positive results.

The sad thing is, when folks desiring gun control are educated on guns (particularly what guns can - and more importantly, what they can't - do,) and gun statistics, many gun owners are more than willing to discuss practical common sense solutions (even including some levels of regulation and stricter licensing.) But when folks come stampeding in screaming about "assault weapons" and "machine guns" without any understanding of what those words mean, then try to push through thoughtless legislation for the sake of legislation, then yes, people are going to oppose it. And that's not stubbornness or an unwillingness to compromise; it's merely the only sensible reaction to being faced with those very two things.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

Add to it hysteria and complete disregard to any facts in mass media...

[garote]

Yeah I dunno ... I don't think it's a matter of expertise. I think it's a matter of public sentiment enabling - or blocking - those with the expertise.

In that regard it's comparable to the US drug war. Nowadays, everybody* knows public demand for, and acceptance of, the drug is something that society has to sort out on its own, and that the way to combat a drug epidemic is not to go after the users of it, but to provide mitigation to those users that makes them less dangerous (therapy, alternative drugs, social support), and go after the manufacturers of the drug at the same time.

In a similar way - and without the fucking second amendment fucking everything up - it would be trivial for the US to pass a number of laws that regulate the manufacture and design of guns, and go after anyone who strays from the requirements. If there are technical details to work out in the design, that's where the experts come in.

Personally, I'd like to see a law requiring that ANY firearm manufactured in or imported into the US come with a fingerprint lock and a pressure sensor in the grip, like a modern smartphone. You can authorize it with the scanner, then it remains authorized until you let go if it. There are technical details to work out with that, but they're not onerous. The parts to do it have already been engineered to withstand water, heat, and the shock equivalent to a bullet firing.

The point being, a design like that prevents home accidents, prevents an intruder from stealing and using your gun - against you or others - and is quick enough to provide self-defense. It may even allow for loosening the restrictions on separating guns and ammunition, and storing firearms in a safe at home, which would markedly improve the home-defense utility of a gun.

And, the next point being, if you make a similar design demand for hunting rifles, you've covered the two major legal uses of a firearm that aren't purely recreational in nature, and you can (again without the 2nd amendment and its mouth-frothing backers fucking it up) ban the import and manufacture of every other kind of gun, across the board, period, with exceptions only for military use and subject to military control.

People don't have to be experts on guns to vote for this kind of regulation, any more than they have to be experts on the specific chemistry of drug manufacture to vote for chasing down manufacturers. They just need the collective will.

Unfortunately, I seriously doubt this will come to pass, because there is a whole lot of money tied up in firearm manufacture, and a whole lot of cultural identity tied up in guns specifically being a crucial item in the balance of power between government and citizens.

* Sensible modern Liberals

[oportet.livejournal.com]

All of this shit the last few days, the bills, the arguing, the voting - served one purpose - filler for campaign commercials; so serious whispery-voice guy can say 'Senator _______ worked hard to toughen up gun laws/protect your second amendment rights' - and it'll be true, and bullshit - all at the same time.

[dreamville-bg.livejournal.com]

We can't let a good shooting go to waste.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

It's pointless. Let them keep finding excuses for continuously slaughtering each other for no reason whatsoever.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

Another day, another massacre, and another massive portion of equivocating. And then all goes on as usual. But of course things are getting better... or if they aren't, they will... at some point.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

There was a time I used to get frustrated by these things. Now I'm mostly cynical. I know this isn't a good thing, but that's that. Getting frustrated won't change a thing. I'm inclined to agree with luzribeiro above.

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

I have tried to stay away from this debate for the exact same reason. People keep bickering about these things, but ultimately nothing will change.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

The NRA must be doing something very smart to get so deep under the skin of an entire nation, and sell them a narrative as populist as it is simple: freedom or and death! That sort of brainwashing success rate requires huge skills, I must admit. Kudos to them.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

It's not just NRA. Noone knows exactly how many households have guns but it's about 40-60% of all households in USA own guns (it's very disproportionate by state so difficult to estimate). And average gun owner has 8 guns. NRA states that their membership numbers is about 5 million people. NRA is Koch Brothers boogieman for gun control debate.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

John Oliver had a good piece on the NRA and their 5 million members. He argued that they have such a huge leverage because they are very well organized, and most importantly, because they show up personally to press legislators relentlessly. In other words, they're more vocal than the moderate majority which outnumbers them vastly, but is not as invested in the issue as the NRA supporters are. Plus, they're a single-issue organization, which makes it much easier for them. And their message is a plain rejection of anything that crosses their position, and saying NO to everything makes things even easier.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

This just in.

A Briton who tried to grab a police officer's gun at a Donald Trump rally in Las Vegas said he wanted to shoot the US candidate, court papers say (http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36582770).

Of course, Trump was never in danger because the people at the rally would have jumped the attacker and saved their messiah anyway.

If more people are allowed to carry guns at Trump rallies, no attacker would ever think of making an attempt at Trump's life, because they'd be instantly shot on the spot by the crowd. RIGHT???

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Almost proud. Definitely ashamed. The definition of cognitive dissonance.