The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Lexicus]

I am not knocking their work here, I have come across their stuff on gun control before and it seems to make sense. But the RAND corporation is a hard right think tank that was mostly about promoting the cold war. That even they are on the gun control side of the argument makes me even more confused about the electoral coalition that keeps guns so available when most people are pro-gun control.

Spoiler A graph showing most people are pro-gun control :

I think the degree to which the US is functionally governed by a tiny and ideologically extreme minority due our idiotic constitution tends to be glossed over most of the time

Edit: more to say but lack time at the moment

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Someone tried to smuggle guns into Canada via drone. The drone got caught in a tree, and when the cops got it down they found a plastic bag attached, which contained several illegal guns. No word yet on who actually did it.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

16 or 18 is too high, given that there are teens who have willfully and deliberately murdered people.

people below the age of 10 do this also. it's not common, but it happens.

All that for an argument over a boyfriend, though I've sometimes wondered if it could have also been a hate crime due to the victim not being white.

if you have a known strong motive and don't have evidence of the other motive, why privilege the potential explanation with no evidence over any other arbitrary motivation guess, and especially over the known explanation?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

people below the age of 10 do this also. it's not common, but it happens.



if you have a known strong motive and don't have evidence of the other motive, why privilege the potential explanation with no evidence over any other arbitrary motivation guess, and especially over the known explanation?

Hate crimes weren't unknown then, but weren't as widely reported. Of course I don't know and I did state that I wondered.

Regardless of the motive, it was a murder and the perpetrators deserved prison regardless of their age at the time.

 

[Estebonrober]

Yes, the RAND Corp was founded by Douglas Aircraft after the war specifically to provide research data to the U.S. military. One of its founders was Curtis LeMay. Clearly a bunch of long-haired peaceniks who hate America and want to take everyone's guns.

As for being confused, don't feel bad, we can't explain it, either.

We can explain it, the GOP is literally sociopathic monsters. I'm almost viewing them as beyond redemption as humans. Their base following them even support reform, but their leadership and echo chambers are fudging monsters. Did you know that MTG is the leading fundraiser in the house GOP? MTG's eye-popping fundraising haul- POLITICO

Jewish space lasers...

 

[Estebonrober]

hence criticisms of the fake terminology "assault weapon" continue to be relevant. it's been an effective propaganda tool. too effective considering it's more or less a meme in terms of being meaningful otherwise.

it is an effective tool because people know it means this...

Many of the bodies were in bad shape. Diaz tried to spare the parents as much pain as possible, hoping to positively identify the murdered children through descriptions their parents gave of clothing they wore to school that day, of photos parents showed him.

'Children don't carry IDs': Texas official faced horror of identifying bodies of those he knew | Reuters

and jsut to say the quiet part out loud, this means their fudging heads were destroyed. this is what assault weapons do to children and people know it. I'm not mincing words here people who quibble the terminology are fudging monstrous sociopaths. fudge you, fudge your stupid hobby rifles, and fudge the party continuing this madness in my country.

 

[EgonSpengler]

So 204 U.S. Representatives voted against the House bill which, according to CNN, would do the following:

• Raise the legal age to buy certain semiautomatic centerfire rifles from 18 to 21 years old
• Establish new federal offenses for gun trafficking and for selling large-capacity magazines
• Allow local governments to compensate individuals who surrender such magazines through a buyback program
• Create a tax incentive for retail sales of safe storage devices
• Create criminal penalties for breaking new requirements regulating firearm storage on residential premises
• and take steps to strengthen existing federal regulations on bump stocks and ghost guns.

I don't know what the objections are to this bill, beyond the aforementioned sociopaths, such as Jim Jordan of Ohio, who is quoted by CNN as saying, "Here they come -- going after law-abiding citizens' Second Amendment liberties. The Speaker started by saying this bill is about protecting our kids. That is important. ... That's what she said, 'protecting our kids is important.' Yes, it is. But this bill doesn't do it. What this bill does is take away second amendment rights, God-given rights, protected by our Constitution from law-abiding American citizens. That's what this legislation does, and that's why we should oppose it."

I already thought he was a [stink]heel, so I have almost no reaction to his comments here. But I don't know whether he speaks for others in his party. Just from reading a couple of articles on the web, I don't see anything in this bill that I think a sensible gun-owner and 2nd-Amendment proponent should object to, inasmuch as I'm able to put myself in those shoes. I may keep reading, to see if there are any good-faith, well-reasoned objections to this bill, but I don't really expect to find any. Perhaps many of the 204 votes against are because this bill doesn't go far enough or isn't strong enough, but somehow I doubt it.

Elsewhere...

Reuters, June 8, 2022 - "More than 600 conservatives, mostly in Texas, call for gun reform"

More than 600 conservative gun rights supporters, including several major Republican donors, are urging Congress to pass gun control measures in the wake of mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas, and elsewhere in the United States.

A group of mostly Texas residents organized by Todd Maclin, a former senior executive at J.P. Morgan Chase, signed an open letter in support of expanding background checks for gun purchases, passing "red flag" laws to deny firearms to people judged a risk to themselves or the public, and raising the minimum age to buy some guns to 21 from 18.

 

[Samson]

What are the opinions on "red flag" laws? I generally think these rules that leave it up to perception rather than "beyond reasnoble doubt" are generally used as a tool of oppression of those the PTB do not like, and there seems at least some question of that here:

black people were overrepresented in gun removal orders by a factor of nearly 2 to 1 compared to their share of the county population (12.0% vs. 6.9%).

we should not ignore the fact that virtually all of these civil restraining orders were initiated by law enforcement officers, and approved by judges, who are embedded in systems of criminal justice that for decades have ensnared young men of color in staggeringly disproportionate numbers. Similarly, police officers were the petitioners in 97% of ERPO cases in California.

Our recent study of Indiana’s experience with a risk-based firearm removal law found that 1 in 5 respondents were arrested, either in conjunction with the firearm seizure event or during the subsequent 12 months covered by the order; 17% of those arrests resulted in charges for firearm offenses--behavior that may not even have been illegal absent the ERPO order. While ERPOs are not criminalizing per se, noncompliance with them can be; this creates an avenue by which unequal enforcement along racial lines could perpetuate justice disparities.​

 

[Farm Boy]

Low.

 

[IglooDame]

What are the opinions on "red flag" laws? I generally think these rules that leave it up to perception rather than "beyond reasnoble doubt" are generally used as a tool of oppression of those the PTB do not like, and there seems at least some question of that here:

black people were overrepresented in gun removal orders by a factor of nearly 2 to 1 compared to their share of the county population (12.0% vs. 6.9%).

we should not ignore the fact that virtually all of these civil restraining orders were initiated by law enforcement officers, and approved by judges, who are embedded in systems of criminal justice that for decades have ensnared young men of color in staggeringly disproportionate numbers. Similarly, police officers were the petitioners in 97% of ERPO cases in California.

Our recent study of Indiana’s experience with a risk-based firearm removal law found that 1 in 5 respondents were arrested, either in conjunction with the firearm seizure event or during the subsequent 12 months covered by the order; 17% of those arrests resulted in charges for firearm offenses--behavior that may not even have been illegal absent the ERPO order. While ERPOs are not criminalizing per se, noncompliance with them can be; this creates an avenue by which unequal enforcement along racial lines could perpetuate justice disparities.​

​

They looked at the usage of it in some town in Mass (I forgot which, so don't have an article to cite, sorry) where it was similarly almost entirely police initiating the cases. The police chief interviewed explained that in apparent cases of domestic violence the police offered to the victims a willingness to initiate it on the victims' behalf. Obviously, you can take that two vastly different ways.

So... not a fan. I do think if the usage were narrowed considerably, so it can't be used by law enforcement to perpetuate bad stuff they already do, and make it far more difficult to be used for simple harassment, then its worth might outweigh the negatives of it.

 

[Estebonrober]

What are the opinions on "red flag" laws? I generally think these rules that leave it up to perception rather than "beyond reasnoble doubt" are generally used as a tool of oppression of those the PTB do not like, and there seems at least some question of that here:

black people were overrepresented in gun removal orders by a factor of nearly 2 to 1 compared to their share of the county population (12.0% vs. 6.9%).

we should not ignore the fact that virtually all of these civil restraining orders were initiated by law enforcement officers, and approved by judges, who are embedded in systems of criminal justice that for decades have ensnared young men of color in staggeringly disproportionate numbers. Similarly, police officers were the petitioners in 97% of ERPO cases in California.

Our recent study of Indiana’s experience with a risk-based firearm removal law found that 1 in 5 respondents were arrested, either in conjunction with the firearm seizure event or during the subsequent 12 months covered by the order; 17% of those arrests resulted in charges for firearm offenses--behavior that may not even have been illegal absent the ERPO order. While ERPOs are not criminalizing per se, noncompliance with them can be; this creates an avenue by which unequal enforcement along racial lines could perpetuate justice disparities.​

Red flag laws are good in regard to domestic disputes imo, suicide ideation and stuff on that wavelength are murkier, but red flagging suicidal tendencies would save more lives.

Yes, black people are going to be overrepresented in this because policing in the US is systemically racist by design and in action. This is like classic corruption, the solution is not to dissolve any law and order or function of government, the solution is to behave better and expect better from our civil servants.

 

[Lexicus]

Just ban anyone who's ever done domestic violence from even being around guns.

 

[El_Machinae]

That would have a deeply racist impact.
But, because the victims will tend to be even lower on the privilege ladder, also attempting to protect some of the most at-risk people.

Then it would be this utterly weird interaction of dissuading abuse victims from seeking help if they 'believe in the 2nd Amendment'.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

What are the opinions on "red flag" laws?

the usual problem of "who gets to decide" comes to mind.

black people were overrepresented in gun removal orders by a factor of nearly 2 to 1 compared to their share of the county population

as you allude to later on, i suspect this is directly tied to the proportional representation in criminal justice system generally, with all the usual baggage that carries in terms of trying to explain it (some mishmash of cultural issues + prison labor farming/abuses incentivized by money + actual racism + more with no easy way to demonstrate which are strongest predictors).

That would have a deeply racist impact.

policy may or may not be racist. outcomes are not. they are nothing more than observations. to claim the "impact" is racist, you'd have to first observe a disparity wrt domestic violence or w/e, and then show that those incidents are not actually occurring at a higher rate based on stratification.

 

[El_Machinae]

policy may or may not be racist. outcomes are not.

You are arguing a definition, same as before. These can lead to conversation disputes, but only when it causes confusion. You can understand the meaning I'm imputing. My usage is also extremely common.

 

[Estebonrober]

You are arguing a definition, same as before. These can lead to conversation disputes, but only when it causes confusion. You can understand the meaning I'm imputing. My usage is also extremely common.

the obfuscation is the point, it allows him to avoid the topic itself

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You are arguing a definition, same as before. These can lead to conversation disputes, but only when it causes confusion. You can understand the meaning I'm imputing. My usage is also extremely common.

i don't agree with the usage, it quickly gets used interchangeably in a way which implies problems not supported by evidence. which is also extremely common.

moving the assertion of cause around isn't helpful, especially when a non-trivial number of people are attributing cause/motivations nonsensically. we get people unironically claiming "laws against domestic violence are racist" or "laws against homicide are racist". i consider policy based on such rhetoric to be actively discriminatory and harmful, so i have some incentive to argue definitions and precision of claims.

 

[El_Machinae]

moving the assertion of cause around isn't helpful.

It might be that you're 'reading in' an assertion of cause? What assertion of cause are you perceiving?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It might be that you're 'reading in' an assertion of cause? What assertion of cause are you perceiving?

"racist impact", once it's no longer being used as a proxy for "the end result of something multiple steps back in a causal chain that might be racist", implies attribution of cause to things that logically can't be racist.

thus you see people unironically arguing that laws against x crime disproportionately impact y demographic "systemically". as if it's the policy itself causing the disparity and thus shouldn't be implemented, and not the outcome reflecting differences elsewhere. people seem to really, really struggle with that distinction (deliberately or otherwise).

 

[El_Machinae]

it's the policy itself causing the disparity and thus shouldn't be implemented

If there are a set of conditions, and there is a change and then new outcomes, then the change caused the new outcomes. This says nothing about things being multi-causal or denies that things are multi-causal. A warning about a 'racist outcome' will often be a warning that there are multiple dials that need to be fiddled with, which is the very opposite of suggesting that something is 'simple'. The motive of a policy will not always matter as much as the outcome of the policy. It's the wrong thread, but this is why cries of "early abortion advocates were racists" and "early minimum wage advocates of minimum wage were racists" doesn't matter as much as the accusers think it will.

It might be that people have some 'blame attribution' bias when they hear that an outcome has a racist effect and go hunting for moral complicity.. Like, if people notice that more black people will lose 'permission to own guns' if domestic violence convictions prevent gun ownership (or not even 'conviction', but some lesser standard), then there will be some people that say "then don't abuse your partners" and some will say "don't preferentially investigate black people" and some will say "don't create social conditions that encourage domestic violence or selective policing". But the observation about the outcome doesn't presuppose any of those things.