End the Gun Epidemic in America
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Should we start a countdown, or an over/under pool, on when Obama will actually do something about this "gun epidemic"? Obviously gun control is a matter for Congress, but there is plenty of precedent where a President has galvanized public opinion to drive political change. One instance (albeit trivial) is when Pres. Ford in the 70s asked the nation to cut down on energy use. By commanding the airwaves and print media (a unilateral option still available to any sitting president), the next week citizens across the nation wore these stupid buttons in response.
There are phenomenal tools available to the president to completely by-pass conventional political process. It is merely up to him to risk his own political capital and legacy to pull the trigger. Some may call it an abuse of power but if our society believes supremely in following one's conscience than surely history will vindicate him.
This could be one of Obama's biggest miscalculations. If Obama is not careful, his few paragraphs in high school textbooks will include a sentence that reads, "Obama's presidency is marked by his lack of response to the American Gun Epidemic of the early 21st century, which during his tenure saw [1,000] lives lost, including 22 schoolchildren in Sandy Hook, leaving it to his successor to enact substantive gun control policy..."
Starting with what they have in common, I would say the restriction of either creates a black market, so that either allows criminal organizations to make a profit selling them. I think there is a difference even there though, since you can argue that criminals still benefit from loosening of gun regulations, because they would have easier access to guns. The primary buyers of illegal firearms are gangs and similar organizations, so that market is mainly there to support criminals who would not be able to obtain them without it. I don't know if that would change with increased restrictions though - maybe some otherwise law-abiding people would be willing to buy illegal guns for self-defense. On the other hand, I can't see how legalizing drugs could benefit crime organizations, except that maybe they could use their existing infrastructure to pivot into a legal drug business. Maybe that is a significant boon, but it doesn't seem worse than any other "legitimate business" that funds criminal activity.
One of the main arguments in favor of drug legalization is quality control - street drugs often contain adulterants that are more debilitating than the drug itself. From what I know, this can't apply to guns since illegal guns are typically originally-legal guns from ordinary gun manufacturers, and don't have as many quality control issues.
And the way they generate harm is different too - drugs mainly harm the user, and guns mainly harm whoever the gun is used on (may sometimes be the same as the user). So drug legalization might be desirable so the harmful qualities of drugs could be reduced (as earlier), and not restricting guns could be desirable in that people will be able to defend themselves from other people with guns (criminals with guns, an oppressive government). This simplifies the issue a bit, and ignores other factors like drug research or hunting and other non-self-defense uses of guns, but I think it's clear that there is significant room to agree with restricting one but not the other.
My post may reek of bias toward drug legalization, but hopefully you agree that it's not as simple as "If you want to loosen drug/gun restrictions, you should also want to reduce gun/drug restrictions".
A key example is their reference to this story, as if it supports the editorial case: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/tough-talk-and-a-c...
With the accompanying quote: "on Thursday every Senate Republican except Mark Kirk of Illinois voted against legislation to prevent people on the F.B.I.’s consolidated terrorist watchlist from purchasing guns or explosives."
Well, the problem with this claim is that the amendment didn't fail because of anything to do with terrorism -- it's because that amendment would have overridden the language regarding the repeal of elements of Obamacare.
Here's the proposed language it is looking to overlay: https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2015/12/01/sen... (the Obamacare component repeal)
Now, here's the Feinstein amendment (scroll down to "SA 2910" portion, read it only): https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/senate-ame...
Now, if you look at the amendment in a vacuum, it looks sorta like what it claims (but it looks odd, to the experienced eye, because there is no mention of a specific criteria for "terrorist" or refer to the FBI watchlist by its proper statute name). So it wouldn't have any effect on its own, being unenforceable vague.
But that's not the point.
Now, note carefully how the legislation starts: "In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the following:"
See THAT: In LIEU OF the matter ("the matter" being ALL of SA 2874, the Obamacare repeal).
The parent bill is H.R.3762 - Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015, which had NOTHING to do with terrorism, or guns. That's the first clue right there.
Congressional Democrats have used this tactic (overwriting legislation they oppose with unrelated content that sounds obviously beneficial in order to trick the media into carrying water for their politicking) clear back to the Tom Foley days, if not Tip O'Neill or beyond.
The ignorant media consumers have been duped, successfully, because few bother to look at the bills...
...which, in this case, took me all of about 8-10 clicks in total.
Why would you want to have a killing machine lying around at home? That sounds horrific.
1. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/02/gun-tv-home-s...
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/upshot/in-other-countries-... (was on HN recently)
You don't need a concealed-carry permit to carry a concealed gun; you just need one to do it LEGALLY. I would venture to guess that a person who carries concealed with the intent of committing murder will not have bothered to get a permit.
My reasoning for keeping a killing machine (it lies around either in a safe or on my person at all times) is because crime happens, and criminals are willing to do things like use force and/or weapons. Police can't be everywhere, and while their response time here is pretty good, it's generally more than enough time for the criminals to do what they want and escape. I'd be happy to go back in time and un-invent guns, but as it stands, I don't see any way to remove all of them from all criminals' hands. So it seems to me the only viable preventive measure is for citizens to defend themselves with the same tools the criminals illegally use to commit their crimes.
If tomorrow all gun possession (except perhaps by LEO, but even that is debatable IMHO) was made illegal, then within one year i'm sure there would be many less guns in circulation (without considering who owns them). In my books this is a net win, because a criminal entering the scene at that point in time will arguably have a harder time sourcing a gun than is currently the case. Profit, i would say. Indeed the stable state of this system is, as you point out, that only non-law-abiding citizens will be in possession of guns, but that is collateral i'm willing to accept (as in the society where i currently live. Death rate per capita by guns is much lower here than in the US, see my linked article from The Guardian). The end game of your desired society seems to me that it's an arms race (excuse my wording): everyone who wants to be 'safe' should have a gun, therefore criminals have more incentive to have guns, etc.
The other question i have is how one explains the fact that in many societies where gun possession is not legal, the situation is far from the doom scenario where criminals with guns are rife. Of course, they exist, and of course shit happens, but it still seems that the evidence (just the statistics, no moral arguments) points to the desirability of outlawing gun possession.
And finally, no matter how carefully you treat and/or store your gun, it is still more likely (even if the likelihood is only epsilon) to accidentally go off or get played with by a child than my gun, which does not exist at all.
You have just described present-day Mexico. How much safer do you feel when there, versus when in the U.S.?
The US homicide rate is around 3.8 per 100k. That is higher than much of Europe (UK 1.0, Finland 1.6, Norway 2.2, Germany 0.8) but not to the point that it is rational to fear coming to the US.
Would you fear taking a vacation to Bermuda or the Bahamas? They have much higher homicide rates than the US (7.7 and 29.8, respectively).
Also note that homicide rates are taken over the whole country. They vary considerably from place to place within the country. For most tech jobs that a typical non-US HN reader might come to the US for, you'd almost certainly be working in a location that has a much lower than average homicide rate, and would be making enough money to live in a place with a much lower than average homicide rate.
[1] By one or two orders of magnitude, depending on whose definition of"mass shooting" you use [2]. Mother Jones maintains a list, and theirs says that there have been 4 mass shootings so far this year, with 37 deaths. The Mass Shooting Tracker says 353 so far, with 462 killed.
[2] http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-san-bernardino-mass-shoo...