What are we doing?

[Rideback]

Posted by a friend:

'It's obvious to any rational and compassionate human being that our current gun paradigm is a toxic, massively deadly and destructive obscenity. The question we should be focused on is how, effectively and beneficially, to foster a paradigm shift. As usual, we're more focused on a tribalistic ritual which accomplishes the diametrical opposite. We don't need more noise; we need more effectiveness.
Yes, we need to keep the case in the air why that shift is necessary, but, more importantly, we need to offer an alternative that has some transformative power. This is the one I suggest:
Everyone who wants to reduce the number of guns in circulation and reduce the number that flow into criminal hands, and at the same time back those who oppose doing so into a corner such that the lie of claiming to be "responsible gun owners" is laid bare, should advocate a combination of strict liability, mandatory liability insurance, and a robust, generous national buy-back program.
Here are the advantages. Strict liability, in this case, would mean that any harm inflicted on any innocent person through the instrumentality of the weapon an individual assumed responsibility for (through legal ownership) would be that individual's responsibility, incurring civil liability, unless and until that responsibility is transferred by mutual consent to another eligible gun owner. This strongly incentivizes ensuring that one's gun does not fall into the hands of anyone who will misuse it, whether through theft, straw purchases, or other transfers, thus drying up the black market and vastly reducing the flow of guns into criminal hands.
As with automobile drivers, we have to ensure that gun owners are capable of meeting that responsibility, which is what mandatory liability insurance does. Actuarial science can determine premiums on the basis of number and type of guns and accessories owned, how they are stored, demographic characteristics of the gun owner, and contextual factors. A rural family man who owns and safely stores a traditional hunting rifle would pay minimal premiums, for instance, because his hunting rifle poses minimal danger to others.
This, in economic terms, "internalizes the externality." That means, it imposes the thus far external costs on others in the form of their endangerment on the gun owner him or herself in monetized form. That allows the market to reduce gun ownership to those who are willing to pay that real cost (to the limited extent that monetized damages can match the grief of losing a loved one). The buy-back program makes it easy for those who don't want to bear that cost to relieve themselves of it, gradually draining guns out of circulation.
This bundle of policies does nothing more or less than make a literal, legal reality of the much abused phrase "responsible gun owners." Any gun owner who opposes it is explicitly admitting that they do not wish to be a truly responsible gun owner, bearing the actual responsibility of owning a gun. This is not only a great policy paradigm, but it also clarifies the debate and the perfidy and amorality of the gun cult.'


Oh, and btw, where were the good guys with the guns in Uvelde? The people who saved children were teachers who were unarmed. The guys who were paid to save the children and were armed stood outside in the hallway for over an hour.

[dorankj]

You guys are such cowards! Why exactly am I responsible? Because I actually believe our founding documents? To point out how ridiculous your 'arguments' are: I'm sure the founders had no understanding of cell phones, internet and social media should we throw out the first amendment because we have new ways to communicate? The ONLY way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a GOOD guy with a gun.

[Rideback]

The link I gave above shows 26 mass shootings and 42 dead in the month of May, including Oklahoma's shooting today.

The UK & Australia implemented gun control that worked and now Canada is looking to do the same. No one said it was easy.

[mister_coffee]

Okay, we have another mass shooting at a hospital in Oklahoma, with at least four people dead.

There have been nineteen mass shootings in the USA since Uvalde.

Ken, how many have to die for your rights?

[dorankj]

There are 15 million AR platform rifles in circulation, you will never get them removed and of course if you do the bad guys will change to whatever is the next option in their sick twisted mind (and they never follow laws anyway). Fear, fear of others taking them out is the real deterrent. These dirt bags are cowards but they aren't stupid, get rid of this "gun free zone" nonsense, protect our children like our politicians and money ( they are far more important!)

[Rideback]

2022 record of shootings

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/repo ... s-shooting

From the Brookings article, I don't think I'd want to be shot with either a hunting rifle or an AR 15, but the AR 15 is pretty gruesome.

'In contrast, the injury patterns seen in relation to AR-15 military-style assault rifles are somewhat indescribable. Bullets fired from these weapons exit the barrel at supersonic speeds that are 3x faster than conventional low velocity handguns. The increased velocity rate of these projectiles results in a cavitation effect on impact with the human body, such that the bullet causes a ripple wave of destruction to arteries, veins and soft tissues. Organs that experience high velocity gun injury are left eviscerated. Bony structures that are directly impacted by these ballistic missiles are reduced to rubble. The exit wounds associated with AR-15 firearms are often the size of grapefruits. Simply put, when Surgeons attempt life-saving measures in these cases, there is often nothing salvageable to fix.

[pasayten]

Pasayten, I beg to differ. The wounds created by an AR 15 are strikingly worse than a shotgun
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2 ... ay-vision/

Did I say shotgun? No... Traditional hunting rifles and handguns are larger caliber and use expanding "mushrooming" physics... Larger caliber = deadlier... https://www.statista.com/statistics/195 ... apon-used/

Still the problem is the person...

[PAL]

Renew the assault weapons ban that Trump let expire.

[dorankj]

I don't support symbolic gestures that don't actually solve any problems, since this shooter had 60-90 minutes with these kids before confronted by a good guy with a gun nothing you're going on about solves anything. It's just another opportunity to hit your political opponents and you sure like to do that!

[Rideback]

Pasayten, I beg to differ. The wounds created by an AR 15 are strikingly worse than a shotgun
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2 ... ay-vision/

[dorankj]

I'm afraid we're far beyond making sense Ray, it's all political positioning and emotionalism. I suppose I should be happy they care at least about these kids' lives.

[pasayten]

BTW, I would rather be shot by a round from an AR-15 than a regular hunting rifle or pistol/revolver... The standard ammo for an AR-15 is full metal jacket... to pass thru... as opposed to enter and mushroom causing extensive damage like a traditional hunting rifle or pistol/revolver...

The real problem is the mental health and attitudes behind the gun... not actually the gun itself... Reagan was seriously wounded by a common .22 Long Rifle bullet that ricocheted off the side of the presidential limousine and hit him in the left underarm, breaking a rib, puncturing a lung, and causing serious internal bleeding. You can easily get a semi-automatic .22 long rifle for $250-$400... Why focus on the AR-15?

I would be for waiting periods, background checks, and even firearm handling courses... Not for focusing on this gun or that gun... That makes no sense. It's the person... not the gun.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/195 ... apon-used/

[mister_coffee]

I'm sorry, but I will never buy that there is an unlimited right to self-defense. Even our law recognizes that situations where you can appropriately use deadly force are very proscribed, though more proscribed in some states than in others.

If we had unlimited rights to use deadly force in self-defense there'd be people with nukes connected to dead man switches in the backs of their pickups. Or walking around with vials of nerve gas.

People don't have the right to "bear" howitzers, tanks, or military aircraft. For that matter, fully automatic weapons are pretty much banned unless you jump through some fairly insane hoops.

Nobody is going to defend their home with machine gun emplacements and land mines, though during hunting season I'd be open to the idea.

The fact of the matter is that all sane people agree there is a line where certain weapons are inappropriate for private citizens. We just disagree on where the line is.

[Rideback]

The simple answer is that when James Madison and the founding fathers lived there were no telephones much less an ability to call 911.

Misunderstanding the 2nd Amendment

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontlin ... amendment/

[dorankj]

I’m pretty aware of our founding documents, how exactly do I ensure my and my families lives if I can’t use a commensurate level of force to whoever may come to deprive our lives? I’ll wait for your outrageous claim that you think will win any argument!

[Rideback]

There you go again.
Read up on what our forefathers wrote: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/ ... transcript

Pasayten; the problem with Reagan's argument is that the UK and Australia both banned some handguns, made stricter laws to purchase and own guns and in Australia they did a gigantic buy back. The results for both nations was a dramatic drop in shootings in their countries. Of course this happend after Reagan left the presidency so he didn't have the benefit of seeing in action how gun control could work.

[dorankj]

Wow pot! Meet kettle.

[Rideback]

You have a peculiar habit of rewriting what other commenters contribute so that you can then charge right in with a claim that you think will be so outrageous that it will automatically win any argument.

Context is everything. One of the reasons we have the SCOTUS is to interpret new situations that were not on the founding fathers' radar, mainly because there was no radar back then, but I digress, anyway as our country has grown and changed we need wisdom to apply the laws and the Constitution to the situations that keep cropping up. The Federalist Society likes to revert to 'original intent' but like the bible the wisdom is in the story telling not taking it literally.

[PAL]

dorankj wrote: ↑Tue May 31, 2022 10:27 am
So there’s NOT a fundamental right, endowed by our creator to self protection? Isn’t government instituted to protect those rights? You’re messing with our entire foundation, not something to be taken lightly!

The entire foundation that is being messed with is the killing of innocent people, especially children.
Assault weapons ban, without the loopholes the original bill had.
Otherwise, this will continue, on and on. And yes, they want to escalate the violence, they have shown.

[pasayten]

Yep…

[Rideback]

'Let's take a moment to honor the sacrifice of our brave schoolchildren who lay down their lives to protect our right to bear arms'

[dorankj]

So there’s NOT a fundamental right, endowed by our creator to self protection? Isn’t government instituted to protect those rights? You’re messing with our entire foundation, not something to be taken lightly!

[Rideback]

Today, the US has the largest military force on the face of the planet, a force dedicated to protecting its citizenry. At the time James Madison proposed the 2nd Amendment local citizens were critical in protecting their communities. The Federalist Papers have been acknowledged, by their writers, as biased without effort to carry out a proactive discussion that would find common sense gun ownership. Their premise is that the US exists today as it did over 200 years ago so their literalist interpretation of the Constitution leaves no room for the 200 years of change; ie, we have left behind the acceptance of having slaves, of believing that a person of color was only 2/3 of a human being, we now allow women to vote, we have explored space, we have cell phones that we can use to call 911...

Those differences point toward the question of what we can & are willing to do to allow 18 year olds to purchase AR15's that are capable of mass murder and then use them for exactly that purpose? In the military, when an 18 year old enters service they are not only schooled about the use and care of a weapon, they are instructed not to use that weapon on a civilian and the weapons are inventoried and locked up until that soldier goes onto a field of war and that's where the difference occurs between what James Madison intended and where we're at today.

https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/d ... EALw_wcB#/

[dorankj]

Militias are formed by citizens to defend their community, no federal ‘oversight’ at all. The ‘type’ of gun allowed was what is generally available (so as to have equal firepower to those trying to deprive you of your rights). That clause is to explain why shall not be infringed is imperative, you should read some ‘federalist papers’, it explains exactly what our founders’ intended.

[mister_coffee]

Of course you are leaving out the "well-regulated militia" part of that amendment, which to me implies that regulation of that right is okay and appropriate. Otherwise why would they have it in there?