Why Gun Control Can’t Be Solved in the USA | Hacker News Reader

Why Gun Control Can’t Be Solved in the USA

blog.dilbert.com

34 pointsprostoalex31 comments

Let's start smaller then - let's get rid of the Dickey Amendment so that the CDC can actually conduct public health studies involving firearms. Then we can stop making gross generalizations based on nothing credible and have a real conversation.

Sure, but can we also stop counting suicides in the "gun violence" numbers.

Sure, but at a state level lax gun laws are correlated with an overall increase in suicide, so it's not a free pass.

> Each law was associated with significantly lower firearm suicide rates and the proportion of suicides resulting from firearms. In addition, each law, except for that which required a waiting period, was associated with a lower overall suicide rate. Follow-up analyses showed a significant indirect effect on overall suicide rates through the proportion of suicides by firearms, indicating that the reduced overall suicide rate was attributable to fewer suicide attempts, fewer handguns in the home, suicide attempts using less lethal means, or a combination of these factors. States that implemented any of these laws saw a decreased suicide rate in subsequent years, whereas the only state that repealed 1 of these laws saw an increased suicide rate.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2015.3...

And gang violence. I think it's safe to say, gun crimes among gangs would just be replaced with something else if guns were taken out of the picture. (Which...removing guns is not possible nor realistic, so let's be realistic about the solutions..)

Yeah, right. Because there's nothing more destructive about a semi-automatic pistol than a knife.

Hmm...

Physical items are not destructive, people are. That's where you have it all wrong. Gang members will kill other gang members by any means, they don't need guns. Guns, knives, bombs, they don't kill people, people kill people.

That is a nonsense argument. By that logic we should let arms dealers sell individuals tanks, missiles, nuclear weapons. Why not? The objects themselves aren't destructive afterall!

The reason is because their POTENTIAL is FAR more destructive and you cannot leave their use up to the whims of an individual with no oversight. That is why we don't! We draw the line somewhere already. So to pretend we don't and that it's all fair game and it's all peoples' fault so it doesn't matter anyway... that's just naive.

Btw, it is totally legal to buy a tank

http://www.guns.com/2015/08/25/want-to-buy-a-tank/

"so long as the gun on the tank has been permanently rendered inoperable."

Yeah, not really what I meant. But kinda cool!

Firearms aren't a matter of public health. Violence might be, but not firearms. It's an inappropriate use of the CDC to have them study firearms. They study bacteria and viruses and such. Not machinery. Not the misuse of machinery.

Mis-using government agencies to do something they weren't created to do is one of the ways our budget gets screwed up.

Scott Adams is a completely baffling human being to me. He sets up an acknowledged straw man about who is responsible for gun violence. Then uses that straw man to illustrate the mechanism behind a psychological divide between democrats and republicans that he presumes to be real, all of which is done in service of constructing an argument that boils down to saying "neither side is going to budge on this issue because they have different perspectives". Extra points for the martyr complex in his footnotes.

Also bonus points for remarking on his own wealth.

Scott Adams seems like the perfect running mate for Trump. Precisely as arrogant, self-involved, and completely unperturbed by a lack of facts to back up his wild conclusions. Not to mention he's perfectly comfortable playing his own fan just like Trump does: http://comicsalliance.com/scott-adams-plannedchaos-sockpuppe...

What a damn idiot. I wonder how many of the upvoters and positive commenters on this thread will be Scott Adams himself since he's well known for perpetrating that kind of shit.

Whether as Jester or Joker, Adams likes to stir the pot, for profit. He is Dogbert.

We forgive his cynicism when applied to the modern corporate office. Because that's punching up and resonates with other victims.

When applied to current events, science, or politics -- especially when he's punching down -- not so much.

He certainly fancies himself as Dogbert. In reality, he's more like the pointy haired boss.

This one of the sanest descriptions of the divide on Gun Control that I've seen. (And it's sanity from the "other side" which is even better!)

Which side to you think Adams is on? He is really team-Trump.

This is a really great perspective I'd never considered before.

My first thought at the headline is that the right to carry guns is a crucial part of American heritage. It's wrapped up tightly with our rebellion against the evil british empire.

Interesting factoid, in 1775 the brits sent a trio of generals to America to confiscate the colonists' guns. One of those generals was named Henry Clinton.

Well, the strange polarization and subsequent gross generalization of democrats and republicans aside, this argument can be applied to almost every controversial issue.

Pro-birthers argue for the rights of unborn fetuses, pro-choicers argue for the rights of mothers.

Anti-vaxxers argue for the rights of parents, pro-vaxxers argue for the rights of the general population (ie. the right to a reasonable expectation of herd immunity).

Pick any controversial topic, both sides are arguing different angles that they believe are for the best.

I think he has a point.

The real reason we won't solve it is because gun control has no teeth and the NRA has too much money. And neither Democrats nor Republicans can piss off the NRA. The one thing that could be done is to repeal the outdated and useless second amendment, but nobody is willing to commit political suicide to do that (if that is even possible).

I agree with you re: the 2nd ammendment, but let's say we repeal it; what's next? How are you going to collect all of the guns that are already out there? I suppose you could outlaw bullets, but people can make them at home (and they will, en masse) . You've just created a huge black market for guns and ammo.

I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think it's as simple as repealing the 2nd (which isn't going to happen any time soon regardless) . We need a practical solution.

Don't forget 3D printing. Removing guns is not a possible solution. That argument is null, and anyone who brings it up is not looking to realistically solve any problem, just push political agenda. With that, "gun free zones" need to be eliminated as they are false. There is no such thing as a gun free zone. Period. You cannot argue that point, it is fact.

Also, if the 2nd amendment is repealed or changed in any way, that will effectively be the end of the United States of America. It will fall apart and states will leave the Union. (Which by the way, Texas can legally leave the union any time they want.) Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, LA, AR, all would likely be the the first to go, and with it a considerable amount of the US military/resources. Any war following that would assure mutual destruction.

Not the OP, but removing the 2nd amendment doesn't make guns illegal. Cars are not constitutionally protected for example. But cars can more easily be regulated because imposing regulations on them doesn't bring us into a constitutional argument over the intentions of the founders regarding the individual's right to a car.

That is reportedly what happened in Australia. People sold their guns on the market for twice what the government was buying them back for.

They had a huge amount of increased gun violence after the buy back.

Statistics? Because every actual statistic shows the opposite.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000082

The NRA has power because people support their mission. They are not especially big political spenders.

I think the public political issue is about 'gun rights vs fear' The actual issue is over the right of the gun manufacturers to increase their sales by 5-10% per year as required by neoliberal economic policy. Thus the fight is limited to 'fancy' assault rifles which are a relatively small percentage of gun sales. Vs handguns which are a large and growing percentage.

So Republicans don't want to use guns to fight crime? Could someone explain? I'm not American.

It's BS, this guy is an idiot cartoonist who fancies himself a genius despite his failed restaurant and various public shamings for gross behavior.

Failed restaurant?

http://www.sfgate.com/art/article/Scott-Adams-Dilbert-creato...

He's failed at a lot of things. But yes, he went into business with an experienced restauranteur and opened a couple of restaurants. Then as they started to dip, he tried to "dilbertize" them which naturally did not work.

Beyond that, he's just a sexist, narcissistic, asshole

http://comicsalliance.com/scott-adam-sexist-mens-rights/

Nobody should listen to anything he says.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com