The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[El_Machinae]

I'm not so sure that 'address what makes people turn' is the rate-limiting step. Like, obviously it is the important step, but that's not where the barrier is.

I'm only speaking anecdotally, but the Venn Diagram between 2A advocates and supporting mental health isn't very big. I mean, supporting it in ways that aren't just mainly local efforts (which I can't speak to, and honestly wouldn't dare).

Politically, I consider this tactically foolish. The political momentum against the 2A is because of mass shootings, not because of more generic gun crimes. It's a salience thing, not a logical thing. And the tactics defending the 2A should reflect that.

The only way to have prevented Sandy Hook would either be to limit Lanza's access to firearms or an earlier intervention that prevented the mental health issues from boiling over.

 

[IglooDame]

I'm not so sure that 'address what makes people turn' is the rate-limiting step. Like, obviously it is the important step, but that's not where the barrier is.

I'm only speaking anecdotally, but the Venn Diagram between 2A advocates and supporting mental health isn't very big. I mean, supporting it in ways that aren't just mainly local efforts (which I can't speak to, and wouldn't honestly dare).

Politically, I consider this tactically foolish. The political momentum against the 2A is because of mass shootings, not because of more generic gun crimes. It's a salience thing, not a logical thing. And the tactics defending the 2A should reflect that.

The only way to have prevented Sandy Hook would either be to limit Lanza's access to firearms or an earlier intervention that prevented the mental health issues from boiling over.

Agreed. Among the pro-gun crowd are a lot of people that just downplay mental health issues generally - they don't typically regard depression as a serious mental health problem, for example - and there's a reluctance about seeking any sort of help in that direction because of social stigma and because they're afraid that any reporting whatsoever might eventually get their guns taken away. Now while you and I might see a reasonable compromise in what reporting can result in loss of 2A rights, there's plenty of local authorities that really would use literally any excuse to check that box and going to see a therapist ten years ago for depression is as good as any other checkmark.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Testosterone + guns = violence
Testosterone + sadness turned to anger + guns = violence

Removing parts of the equations will reduce gun violence. Testosterone would be a challenge to remove; mental health among humans is pretty shaky across the board and does not even have a quick fix like testosterone. The easiest fix for gun violence is to remove/limit guns. But doing so creates "sadness turned to anger" among those that love their guns and will lead to increased gun violence.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'll point out that one of those has compounding benefits once solved.

But getting rid of testosterone might be easier.

Now that people have argued that I am no longer allowed the right to incubate, foster, and loose biological entities (viruses, but the closest thing I'll ever get to making babies ( )) that are merely a statistical threat to other people, we're well-along the slippery slope that women won't be allowed to incubate, foster, and loose biological entities ('males') that are a greater* statistical threat to others.

Spoiler * :

Don't care if I'm accurate!

 

[Farm Boy]

Agreed. Among the pro-gun crowd are a lot of people that just downplay mental health issues generally - they don't typically regard depression as a serious mental health problem, for example - and there's a reluctance about seeking any sort of help in that direction because of social stigma and because they're afraid that any reporting whatsoever might eventually get their guns taken away. Now while you and I might see a reasonable compromise in what reporting can result in loss of 2A rights, there's plenty of local authorities that really would use literally any excuse to check that box and going to see a therapist ten years ago for depression is as good as any other checkmark.

Yup. So you need to be impossibly perfect or the principle must be absolute. Because it's not about principles or actual levels of violence. They want to stop hearing about it in the news. So since no principle actually matters, no conversation does either. Not really. A conversation takes faith.

 

[IglooDame]

I'll point out that one of those has compounding benefits once solved.

But getting rid of testosterone might be easier.

Now that people have argued that I am no longer allowed the right to incubate, foster, and loose biological entities (viruses, but the closest thing I'll ever get to making babies ( )) that are merely a statistical threat to other people, we're well-along the slippery slope that women won't be allowed to incubate, foster, and loose biological entities ('males') that are a greater* statistical threat to others.

Spoiler * :

Don't care if I'm accurate!

I am definitely a fan of the compounding benefits!

Oh, wait, you're referring to the guns part, there.

Sorry, couldn't resist this one...

 

[Sommerswerd]

That is why it is a good idea to have uninsured motorist insurance.

https://wallethub.com/edu/ci/uninsured-motorist-coverage/9647

Obviously laws vary by state, but at least in CT, getting automobile liability insurance creates an equal amount of uninsured motorist insurance automatically by function of statute, whether or not it says so on your policy.

But ultimately, its about the amount of insurance coverage, not just whether you have it or not.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Agreed. Among the pro-gun crowd are a lot of people that just downplay mental health issues generally - they don't typically regard depression as a serious mental health problem

mental health is a separate issue from gun control

you don't fix it by taking away property

The easiest fix for gun violence is to remove/limit guns.

no, actually forcibly taking property, interfering with people's ability to resist both attackers and an authoritarian government is neither the easiest nor best solution

assuming you want a free republic to continue, that is

 

[IglooDame]

mental health is a separate issue from gun control

you don't fix it by taking away property

Access to guns by the mentally ill is a legit issue.

Crime prevention is also a legit issue.

So a separate issue yes, but it's foolish to ignore the probability of reducing crime and particularly mass shootings via addressing mental health issues in society, especially by the folks who purport to be so anti-crime in the first place.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Access to guns by the mentally ill is a legit issue.

not willing to tell mentally ill people they can't have property generally

not willing to use the mentally ill designation by government to seize or prevent otherwise legal property

if you want to reduce suicide, address the source of people choosing to commit suicide

 

[Farm Boy]

But that's enormously harder! Easier to raise the fence. Maybe add some barbs. Fences are for productive animals.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

of course it's harder, but that doesn't mean we should accept using a vulnerable population as a scapegoat

doing nothing is easier than doing something in most cases, and people are working pretty hard to do something wrt gun control

i make exceptions for things like diets etc of course, haha

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, she knows, if you read back.

But the police I have spoken with have all been very much irritated at a lack of mental health spending. It falls to them when others aren't paid to do it, and they know they're not so great at interacting with some of their "regulars."

 

[IglooDame]

not willing to tell mentally ill people they can't have property generally

not willing to use the mentally ill designation by government to seize or prevent otherwise legal property

if you want to reduce suicide, address the source of people choosing to commit suicide

Which was kind of the original point (er, observation), that the folks typically anti-gun are also more involved in general attention towards mental health issues regardless of firearm overlap.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

sure, but its somewhat out of scope for gun control

you can ignore/sacrifice the mentally ill (per policy) with or without infringing on property rights

 

[Farm Boy]

It costs nothing to admit we need to do more for those that are miserable and isolated in society. It also does away with most of the statistical approach argument of "just take the gun away" which cites the majority of gun violence as self-harm*. Which it is. The "raise the fence of misery" argument is hella inhumane. So counter it with a littlest bit of grace.

*handguns, again, btw

 

[El_Machinae]

sure, but its somewhat out of scope for gun control

This is why I said that ignoring it was a tactical mistake. Not only would that bleed some of the political momentum away, but it would be by helping people.

It's like properly funding MSF during an ebola outbreak, so that fewer people are motivated to flee to other continents.

But at a slower timescale.

 

[EgonSpengler]

American Medical Association / JAMA Network Open, 21 February 2022 - "Analysis of “Stand Your Ground” Self-defense Laws and Statewide Rates of Homicides and Firearm Homicides"

Findings In this cohort study assessing 41 US states, SYG laws were associated wih an 8% to 11% national increase in monthly rates of homicide and firearm homicide. State-level increases in homicide and firearm homicide rates reached 10% or higher for many Southern states, including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana.

I think this kind of falls under the heading "No [stink], Sherlock", but I think that kind of research is vital nonetheless. If it ends up confirming our assumptions, that's fine, but if it turns out one's expectations are way off-base, it's important to know that. So I'm glad somebody went ahead and did this. (I'll be honest, if they'd found the reverse, that 'stand your ground' laws actually reduced gun violence, I wouldn't have known what to do with that information. Doesn't mean I wouldn't want to know it.)

Advocates claim that SYG laws enhance public safety by deterring predatory crime through an increased threat of retaliatory violence.

I didn't realize that anyone had claimed this. I guess I'm not surprised, reading it now. It sounds super-counter-intuitive to me, but I can see how people who start from a position of thinking that guns solve problems would figure that well-publicized stand-your-ground laws would have some kind of broad deterrent effect. (Whether you want to live in a society where people behave because of an ever-present fear of getting shot is another question. I think that alone is a health risk. Something to do with cortisol, iirc.)

No statistically significant differences by race, age group, or sex of individuals who died by homicide were identified (Table; eTable 8 in the Supplement). However, stratified models showed more pronounced increases in some demographic groups (Figure 2). The largest increases were seen for White individuals (IRR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.05-1.15; P < .001) and for males (IRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04-1.13; P < .001).

That second part - white and male - meets my expectations, I suppose. I don't know what a stratified model is, though. It's been a long time since I took a statistics class (and I didn't do very well, anyway ).

This is interesting:

Associations of SYG laws with violent deaths differed by state (Figure 3). Large increases for homicide and firearm homicide rates were associated with the enactment of SYG laws in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Missouri. These increases ranged from 16.2% to 33.5%, with firearm homicides typically showing larger increases than total homicides. SYG laws were not significantly associated with changes in homicides or firearm homicides rates in a handful of states, including Arizona, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia.

If you're looking for more to support the vision of the United States as some kind of post-apocalyptic hellscape, I think this is your soundbite:

This cohort study found that the enactment of SYG laws was associated with an abrupt and sustained 8% to 11% national increase in monthly homicide and firearm homicide rates, contributing an extra 58 to 72 homicides each month. This monthly increase alone exceeds total rates of homicides in most Northern and Western European countries today.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, stand your ground, unlike castle doctrine, is fundamentally offensive rather than defensive.

Any reasonable situation needs not SYG. Rittenhouse, as an example, did not stand his ground in a nonmoron state that has no SYG law. All situations SYG excuses will be worse than that one.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

i don't like duty to retreat clauses either. it imposes a burden on someone already in a bad situation/being threatened, and creates extra uncertainty on top of the already-existing "imminent threat of bodily harm" standard required to legally use a weapon regardless

how much retreat is enough retreat, if the attacker persists. 10 feet? one step back? anything that can be described as vaguely in the direction of an attempt at de-escalation?