OT: Highland Park 4th of July Parade Mass Shooting

[Dresden]

Also, Doug, I''m curious where you came up with the number of a trillion dollars to get rid of all guns in the US....if that is the number, it sounds like it still would be a good investment, as currently the cost of gun violence in the US is around 280 billion per year. So you would recoup your investment in just 4 years....

[panthermark]

You are conflating a few problems:
1: Should we do this philosophically (if there were no obstacles)
2: Could we do this politically
3: Can we implement this practically if we do so politically

My answers would probably be:
1: Yes
2: Probably not (at least not right now) and certainly not in one step
3: Yes, but likely at an extreme high cost that I personally wouldn't be willing to pay

I'm not conflating them, they are just all intertwined.
The way you split them out is fine, but you are going to get into the same answer.
For me:
1. Maybe, depends on what is being removed (devil is always in the details, are you talking all firearms, or just assault weapons, or just handguns or what?), and more importantly, how you plan on getting criminals to comply, being that they don't comply now?
2. No, especially if the bad guys will still have weapons.
3. No, See #2

What about the 2nd amendment distinguishes these things? It doesn't distinguish at all, so either you know there are implicit practical limitations on the 2nd amendment and we know that there has to be some regulation around weapons in which case, those are up for debate and fully on the table with no clear line in the constitution given or all weapons are protected by the constitution in which case personal nuclear bombs should be a thing.

It's a completely illogical take to say say semi-automatic weapons are protected by the constitution but fully automatic ones aren't or draw any other line you want to around weapons that didn't exist when it was written with no meaningful reference. The phrase "well regulated militia" implies that regulations around the 2nd amendment should exist, and to imply they have to be set between fully automatic weapons and semi-automatic weapons is nonsense. In fact, if you agree that there has to be some regulation, it doesn't even explicitly protect guns. Arms could mean it doesn't outlaw knives or well regulated could mean any number of things.

Of course this is just a logical interpretation and not what our courts would do. Our courts will vote on party lines, because that's how our political system rolls.

I'm glad you brought that up. Fully automatic weapons used to be available to the public, and there are quite a few gun owners that want the 1934 NFA , and parts of the 1986 FOPA repealed for the reason you listed. They are either covered under the 2nd or they are not.
Up until 1934 (NFA), you could simply buy a machine gun if you wanted to, (or could afford it.) There was no special fee or tax or registration or anything. Of course no one could afford one, and they made little sense during the depressions, plus gangs using Tommy Guns and BAR's is what forced the NFA.
Up until 1986, new machines guns were still being made (even if sold as NFA items).
It seems that the Supreme Court is OK with automatic weapons being held apart under a "dangerous and unusual" clause, and also "not in common use". It is a bit of a chicken and egg situation since it is hard to have a weapon in common use that is basically banned (or at least made more difficult get), but that is the decision.
So be it.
As far as the definition of arms, that has been debated and decided in the courts as well.

If you wanted to take away, you would probably start with an escalating program: X years of buy back program, X years of fine + seizure, X years of misdemeanor (X hours of community service) + fine + seizure, then felony + seizure implemented over 10+ years.

Without a repeal of the 2nd, this does not work, and this circles back to the 2nd question of your first response.
"Can we do this Politically?" You said "Probably not (at least not right now) and certainly not in one step.", and I said "No, especially if the bad guys will still have weapons."

----

To be clear, I understand and recognize the how powerful the weapons that I are, and I know damn well that there are a lot of people out there that should not have access to these weapons.
But I also recognize the 2nd Amendment, along with other Amendments in the Bill of Rights. I don't get to choose WHO is allowed to possess and not possess weapons (outside of felons and the mentally ill). I can only trust that those who choose to exercise their rights, have the mentality, maturity, and discipline to not be stupid with them.

I'm pretty sure that after every election this is at least one side (the losing side) that says to themselves, "How can people be that stupid to vote for that person? People that stupid should not be allowed to vote". Or we want to say to some person on a poltical ad that "they should not be allowed to speak/lie like that on air!" But that is now how things work, so we have to live with are perfectly imperfect system.

[panthermark]

Also, you asked how gun buy backs would work- two nations did go through that process- England and Australia. Yes, they first passed legislation. We could, and should do the same here.

Again, they don't have an Amendment on their Constitution that specifically states the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We have buy-backs now, but you can't do the mandatory part. You want to prove the really hardcore gun owners were correct and not crazy gun nuts thinking the government is coming to take their stuff? Try passing legislation that that requires "mandatory government buy-back" of their firearms, which would also be known as "government confiscation". The buy-back part is just a reach-around.

You can't write that legislation without changing the Constitution. Changing the Constitution is going to require 2/3rds and 3/4ths.

[Dresden]

Also, you asked how gun buy backs would work- two nations did go through that process- England and Australia. Yes, they first passed legislation. We could, and should do the same here.

Again, they don't have an Amendment on their Constitution that specifically states the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We have buy-backs now, but you can't do the mandatory part. You want to prove the really hardcore gun owners were correct and not crazy gun nuts thinking the government is coming to take their stuff? Try passing legislation that that requires "mandatory government buy-back" of their firearms, which would also be known as "government confiscation". The buy-back part is just a reach-around.

You can't write that legislation without changing the Constitution. Changing the Constitution is going to require 2/3rds and 3/4ths.

Maybe we would have to have an amendment then- or wait until the make up of the court changes....

[Dresden]

By the same token then, being afraid to go to a 4th of July parade because you are afraid of being shot is also a loss of freedom. So it's a trade off. One freedom for another.

The fear of not going to a 4th of July parade is irrational. You have a better chance of dying in a car crash on the way to the parade than getting shot, and probably by an order of magnitude. Terrorist events create irrational fears. That's the point of it. That said, I'm always against legislating against irrational behaviors. I look at how much money we spent after 911 and most of it was just flushing it down the toilet for no benefit and a ton of it just made flying incredibly inconvenient and awful.

I agree with you that the 3 or 4 trillion dollars we spent going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9-11 was a complete waste of human life and money. I don't think it was a bad idea for the govt to invoke more security measures afterwards though, and spend resources to try to get better intelligence on who might be planning future attacks and how.

Are you sure that the extra security measures at airpots had little benefit? It seems to me that it might have discouraged anyone from doing that in the future. It may not be the best way to prevent it, but I'm not sure it was money flushed down the toilet.

I think there is just something so abhorrent about these mass shootings, particularly when they happen in churches or synagogs or schools that compels us to do whatever we can to stop them, and limiting the amount of bullets that can fired in a short period of time seems one way to do that.

[dougthonus]

I'm not conflating them, they are just all intertwined.

If you are talking about the problem they are intertwined, but you frequently answer questions that are "should we do this" with "the constitution says" which is not a meaningful answer to the "should we do this" question but an answer to a different question.

For me:
1. Maybe, depends on what is being removed (devil is always in the details, are you talking all firearms, or just assault weapons, or just handguns or what?), and more importantly, how you plan on getting criminals to comply, being that they don't comply now?
2. No, especially if the bad guys will still have weapons.
3. No, See #2

And fair enough.

I'm glad you brought that up. Fully automatic weapons used to be available to the public, and there are quite a few gun owners that want the 1934 NFA , and parts of the 1986 FOPA repealed for the reason you listed. They are either covered under the 2nd or they are not.
Up until 1934 (NFA), you could simply buy a machine gun if you wanted to, (or could afford it.) There was no special fee or tax or registration or anything. Of course no one could afford one, and they made little sense during the depressions, plus gangs using Tommy Guns and BAR's is what forced the NFA.
Up until 1986, new machines guns were still being made (even if sold as NFA items).
It seems that the Supreme Court is OK with automatic weapons being held apart under a "dangerous and unusual" clause, and also "not in common use". It is a bit of a chicken and egg situation since it is hard to have a weapon in common use that is basically banned (or at least made more difficult get), but that is the decision.
So be it.
As far as the definition of arms, that has been debated and decided in the courts as well.

Sure, but again, the constitution doesn't specify "dangerous and unusual", you could argue semi-automatic weapons are "dangerous and unusual" as much as fully automatic ones. They're clearly dangerous, and "unusual" is just based on what we allow or not allow. If we wanted to make fully automatic weapons legal they certainly would no longer be unusual either.

Either way, these get back to "well the courts say this", which is purely a political interpretation not an actual interpretation (ie, SCOTUS is held by republicans and they want XYZ so the answer is XYZ).

Philosophically, the constitution says whatever party controls SCOTUS, so it presently says whatever the republicans want it to say. In that sense, I agree with many of your points that nothing will change. The republicans don't want it to change, they hold SCOTUS so it won't change. At least not without overwhelming pressure from the masses.

Without a repeal of the 2nd, this does not work, and this circles back to the 2nd question of your first response.
"Can we do this Politically?" You said "Probably not (at least not right now) and certainly not in one step.", and I said "No, especially if the bad guys will still have weapons."

Sorry, I thought you were asking about "how would you accomplish this task if we agreed to accomplish it". My answer was about that. Your response is "we wouldn't agree to do that". Yes, you are right. We won't agree to do that. If we did, you could do it within the 2nd amendment (if we're talking about semi-automatic weapons) just like we did with automatics. I was discussing how you actually get them off the street, and it's a straight forward phased approach used for many major changes.

But I also recognize the 2nd Amendment, along with other Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

I don't get to choose WHO is allowed to possess and not possess weapons (outside of felons and the mentally ill). I can only trust that those who choose to exercise their rights, have the mentality, maturity, and discipline to not be stupid with them.

Again, the 2nd amendment has the word regulation in it and has nothing in it that implies you can't regulate away semi-automatic weapons. So you do not have to remove it. The word regulation also means you can choose who is allowed to possess and not possess weapons if you want to.

I'm pretty sure that after every election this is at least one side (the losing side) that says to themselves, "How can people be that stupid to vote for that person? People that stupid should not be allowed to vote". Or we want to say to some person on a poltical ad that "they should not be allowed to speak/lie like that on air!" But that is now how things work, so we have to live with are perfectly imperfect system.

Given I'm not a revolutionary, I agree, we have to live with this system. That said, voting is somewhat of a red herring. You can't vote for what you want. You can vote for people who represent two bundles of goods, neither of which you want, and neither of which will likely be implemented as promised anyway because our politicians are owned almost exclusively bought and paid for by special interests anyway.

I'm probably more democrat than republican and would probably generally vote democrat, but I would bet I'm against 70% of the policies of both parties, because they're both awful.

[panthermark]

Also, you asked how gun buy backs would work- two nations did go through that process- England and Australia. Yes, they first passed legislation. We could, and should do the same here.

Again, they don't have an Amendment on their Constitution that specifically states the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We have buy-backs now, but you can't do the mandatory part. You want to prove the really hardcore gun owners were correct and not crazy gun nuts thinking the government is coming to take their stuff? Try passing legislation that that requires "mandatory government buy-back" of their firearms, which would also be known as "government confiscation". The buy-back part is just a reach-around.

You can't write that legislation without changing the Constitution. Changing the Constitution is going to require 2/3rds and 3/4ths.

Maybe we would have to have an amendment then- or wait until the make up of the court changes....

Do you realistically see changing or dropping the 2nd Amendment? I don't. Assuming there is enough votes to even propose, there is no way to get 75% of states to ratify.

Quick look at a map says that, Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana laugh at that idea. That is already 12 states (13 is the line), not including any swing states or purple states (IA, AZ, WI) and I left off Texas just for emphasis. And if you might have noticed, those are only the states west of the Mississippi. Speaking of Mississippi, that would be #13. No need for Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, West Virginia, or any purple of swing state to even bother going to the booth.
The more I look at it, there is a decent chance you get 75% of the states voting AGAINST repealing it. You will get Washington, Oregon, Cali and Hawaii for sure, along with Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, Mass, and Connecticut. It starts to get dicey after that. Maybe you end up with 15 or 16 states voting for it...maybe.

As for the Supreme Court....maybe....until it sways back the other way....then the other way.....then the other way.
More importantly, the whole "in common usage" thing works against any bans every new day that goes by. There is no way possible way someone with a straight face could say that the AR-15, and 30 round mags, are not in common usage today when they are standardly used at every level of service, from civilian to military. At least that is the conclusion I came to years ago when I looked at all of this. Trying to go a step further to ban semi-automatic weapons via the Supreme Court borders is beyond unrealistic IMO.

Politicians are going to go on TV and say whatever they need to say to garner votes, then blame the other party (or their party for not voting hard enough) when their "promise to repeal" doesn't come close to happening...which they knew was the outcome the entire time.

[panthermark]

I'm not conflating them, they are just all intertwined.

If you are talking about the problem they are intertwined, but you frequently answer questions that are "should we do this" with "the constitution says" which is not a meaningful answer to the "should we do this" question but an answer to a different question.

I'm going to answer this one specifically. I touched on this in my last post, but I don't think people fully understand my position.

How I feel about "guns" is a lot different than how I feel about "gun rights". There is a reason why a lot of my answers revolve around, "this is what the law says", or "this is what SCOTUS interpretation" is.

I'm not really big into shooting guns, and when I do shoot, I prefer my AR chambered in .22LR.
I'm big into building AR's. I'm big into studying the history of AR's, and ballistics and making sure I understand all of the laws. I hunt far more critters and shoot a lot more targets bow hunting or with an air rifle.

However, given the potential penalties for violating gun laws, and given the populist and political nature of anti-gun legislation, what I may personally feel takes a back seat to what I think should happen based on laws as written. That "**** your feelings" shirt I own applies to yours truly (me) as well.

A perfect example are bumpstocks. Remember those from the Las Vegas shooting?
I didn't own any bumpstocks.
I didn't like bumpstocks.
I thought they were useless, range toys the just wasted ammo. Something only fine if you lived someplace with a lot of land and wanted to mag dump in a pile of dirt once or twice, then throw the thing in the safe never to be seen again.

I fought like crazy to keep bumpstocks and am furious at how they were outlawed. My feelings towards bumpstocks are irrelevant. Yes, I contacted that ATF and I always comment on their proposals. And yes I contacted good old Tammy and Dick in the Senate.
I did this not because I thought they were useful, but because I knew they were LEGAL.

For those that don't now, the definition of a machine gun was specifically defined by Congress in the 1930's.

Spoiler:

26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Machinegun means: Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

Even under the Obama administration, they were approved by the ATF...twice. It was approved, not because they liked it, but because it was not a machine gun based the law as written.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/oct/06/national-rifle-association/nra-claim-obama-approved-bump-stocks/ There is

Post Las Vegas, the Trump administration, under public pressure from the shooting, directed the ATF to find a way to ban them. The acting ATF director eventually "re-interpreted" written law in order to decide bumpstocks were machine guns, had always been machine guns, and that their prior interpretations were incorrect...never mind that a bumpstock does not impact or touch the trigger at all (remember the definition of a machine gun?). And because the actual underlying law never changed, there was no type of congressional funding set aside for "buy-backs" or grandfathering or anything. It was simply an ATF regulation update and "poof" just like that, the hundreds of thousands of people that owned them, and had not shot anyone, were instantly felons....with their only options being to destroy their property or surrender their property to the ATF of local police. That was it. Anything else is a felony, subject to a $250,000 fine and 10 years in prison (which is the standard NFA violation penalty). All because of what one nutjob did, and the public demanded it. Bumpstocks had been around for years prior to that.
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/bump-stocks
The written law never changed, it is still exactly the same today as it was when they were approved. Congress even commented that they were happy about the Trump/ATF decision, but must codify the law....which never happened.
The companies that made bumpstocks were forced to go out of business immediately, and their products shredded and bulldozed.


This is still winding its way through the courts, and I eventually (hopefully) expect the Supreme Court to rule in favor of bumpstocks and that the ATF reinterpretation is illegal and unconstitutional.

This is why gun owners are so interested in EPA vs WV and how it impact Chevron deference, and why we really follow case laws at multiple levels.

Being that I've had a rule change under me, I now fight tooth and nail, regardless of how I may personally feel about something. I know that if we give an inch, it sets a precedent for the next time when they will take a foot, then a mile.
State or federal laws or EO's that are unconstitutional, or ATF rule changes (which they often change on a whim, yet are treated as enforceable felonies) by unelected political bureaucrats that change based on populist demand are all "hell no's for me.

The system works like this:
If you don't like something, go through the proper channels via your elected officials and have Congress update written laws, then have the POTUS sign said law. If you don't have the votes, too bad (insert our favorite shirt).
If you think something is or isn't Constitutional and want it changed, go through proper channels via your elected officials to have an amendment proposed, then ratified. If you don't have the votes, too bad (once again, insert our favorite shirt).
It seems harsh, but again, I don't like being made a felon overnight without doing anything.

Sorry, for the wall, but that is a long winded answer as to why my responses are always about how the law is as written, or how case law is decided or how interpretations have been discussed and set.

[Dresden]

Do you realistically see changing or dropping the 2nd Amendment? I don't. Assuming there is enough votes to even propose, there is no way to get 75% of states to ratify.

No, I don't see that happening. But the first step is for people to understand that we CAN stop gun violence, the solutions are already out there as shown by many other countries. That's the first step. The second step is getting from there to doing whatever is necessary legally to enact those solutions. But getting people to understand that there is a way out of this is the first thing.

[Dresden]

Here is another example of how the threat of gunfire disrupts what used to be a very safe place- the little league baseball diamond. Is this fear irrational? The price we are paying for the widespread ownership of guns is affecting wider and wider spheres of public and private life:

'Little league teams have pulled out of the North Carolina state championship tournament after gunshots erupted during a weekend game, their organizers said Monday in social media posts."
...

"The events were too traumatic for us to even consider having the teams return to Wilson to play," it said.

The aborted youth sports seasons offer yet another example of how gun violence so often interrupts American life in places traditionally seen as safe, from schools to supermarkets to a holiday parade route. A spate of gunfire this spring near a youth baseball diamond in South Carolina sent players and coaches to the ground for safety; no one was hurt."

CNN

[Almost Retired]

Waiting periods are one of the few areas of potential increased regulation that I really can't get on board with. When a woman's abusive ex husband tells her in a way that she cannot prove that he's gonna kill her, it's a despicable violation of her fundamental human rights to tell her that she can't go buy a revolver to protect herself cause she has to wait a year for psych evals but that that's fine cause she can just call the police if he busts down her door at 3 am one day in a drunken violent rage.

I think on the gun issue, a lot of people just can't seem to ever imagine themselves ever wanting or needing to try to protect themselves, so it's easy to overlook how tyrannical some regulation can be on the most vulnerable in society.

In Germany, you are not allowed to use a gun for self defense. I don't know how the law works exactly, but that is not one of the reasons for owning a gun. maybe they have better laws around domestic violence or something. Or maybe they realize that having a gun in the house for whatever reason just makes it more likely that it will be used on a loved one.

Maybe they aren't as cruel and hateful to each other as Americans can too often be.

We are seeing rising crime rates and murder rates soaring out of control in most of America's cities. There are more crimes being committed in rural areas too. You can't scan the news online without seeing multiple senseless attacks on the innocent. People being pushed out of 5th Floor windows to their deaths (in Chicago yesterday), a couple being pistol whipped and robbed in broad daylight at a shopping mall parking lot in an affluent area of Los Angeles (yesterday), people getting thrown in front of subway trains (in New York City multiple times a week), carjackings (in and around many large cities), old people getting assaulted and/or killed by middle schoolers (in Philadelphia recently)....I could go on for quite a while. Crime is getting worse and more senseless by the day. And it's not going to get better as we slip farther into the Great Depression Part II. More and more people are going to take advantage of the Bruen decision and apply for gun permits in the States where they were previously being denied. According to my NRA Magazine the fastest growing subset of the population that are arming up are women. My wife got trained over a decade ago. I feel better knowing she can retreat to a bedroom closet but has our Glock 19 with a full clip of nasty hollow points just in case. And she feels safer. The old saying....when seconds count the police are just minutes (sometimes hours) away.

[MrSparkle]

Shooting in the walking trail 100ft from my house the other night. It was drug related, involved teens/young adults, maybe gang stuff and likely a handgun. Decently safe hood.

But yeah, crime is way up. Mental hysteria is way up. I’m a very positive person, but you can tell things are heading in uncertain directions.

One general observation I’ll make … is for most people (myself anyhow), money is stressful. Economics and politics are stressful. Is it me, or are they just about 99% of day-to-day focus since the last few years?

The internet, video games, sports used to be pretty nice escapes from the day-to-days bills, job, world events.

Now, all content has constant advertising, and the biggest pushes have been things like crypto, fintech, legal gambling, banking, real estate, oil prices, etc.

I think people are stressed. You can’t go watch a movie without spending $18 or something. Then you watch tons of product placement and ads for a pretty **** microwave film. Same with big concerts, sports events.

I checked out of VGs for a while, and decided to get nba2k22 when it was on sale, and I can’t handle the game. It’s full of ads; you can’t get past the front screen without pressing X 3x to get past “Do you want to pre order NBA2K23 ultimate edition” (FOR $150!!! Wtf?) And the virtual currencies in the game, you can blow more money. All I want to do is de-compress for 15 minutes pressing some buttons and actually making some baskets with the loserBulls, and instead the gameplay is so realistic and mechanical that I feel like it’s a full-time job. Coupled with the game developers literally asking for more money in all the menus… Good grief.

This is what kids do for fun? I would play real basketball, listen to records and CDs and tapes while staring at the wall or playing pool or ping pong with friends, or when we gamed, it’d be Street Fighter 2 or NBA Jam where you press start, play a 10-min game with 3 buttons, have fun, and be done with it.

It’s no wonder people, are completely tripping out. Everything is a ploy to spend money or time on something irrelevant. There has to be a large concentrated cultural effort on curbing corporate advertising and over reach, and regulating the internet and media of ads. But it’s impossible to do at this point, so parents need to wisen up. Does seem like we’re nearing the end of the road, though. Idiocracy.

[Dresden]

Statistically, crime is way down now from what it was 30-50 years ago. Property crime is about half as common, and violent crime is also way down, although it has gone up the last several years. But compared to 1980-90s, crime is way down.

[kyrv]

By the same token then, being afraid to go to a 4th of July parade because you are afraid of being shot is also a loss of freedom. So it's a trade off. One freedom for another.

The fear of not going to a 4th of July parade is irrational. You have a better chance of dying in a car crash on the way to the parade than getting shot, and probably by an order of magnitude. Terrorist events create irrational fears. That's the point of it. That said, I'm always against legislating against irrational behaviors. I look at how much money we spent after 911 and most of it was just flushing it down the toilet for no benefit and a ton of it just made flying incredibly inconvenient and awful.

You would probably like 'Adam Ruins Everything', he does a piece on, I think he called it 'security theatre', things intended to make people feel safer. But it's seemingly a waste of a lot of time/energy/money. (I don't think all measures are a waste but agree with you, much/most of it was.)

[kyrv]

Statistically, crime is way down now from what it was 30-50 years ago. Property crime is about half as common, and violent crime is also way down, although it has gone up the last several years. But compared to 1980-90s, crime is way down.

Crime being down is very good, but violent crimes are to me a huge issue and way too many young people dying from bullets.

[LateNight]

You are conflating a few problems:
1: Should we do this philosophically (if there were no obstacles)
2: Could we do this politically
3: Can we implement this practically if we do so politically

My answers would probably be:
1: Yes
2: Probably not (at least not right now) and certainly not in one step
3: Yes, but likely at an extreme high cost that I personally wouldn't be willing to pay

On the spending issue -

America has a crappy relationship with spending. Our budgets are largely terrible, so we constantly put off spending until the last possible point then find ourselves forced to make these absolutely massive investments all at once to make up (and it increases the likelihood of negative repercussions).

The obvious recent example is infrastructure, which was sorely needed. Something like 33% of the nations bridges were in need of repair - and 7.5% were considered “structurally deficient”. This was true and a well known issue for years before we agreed to invest money in it - bridges were literally collapsing due to inaction.

I’m aware that massive spending has real world impact, and I’m far more wary of it now than I have been in the past. But we need to start doing a better job of addressing these issues before the price tags get unmanageable. Especially when they are problems where the costs will balloon if not addressed.

[dougthonus]

On the spending issue -

America has a crappy relationship with spending. Our budgets are largely terrible, so we constantly put off spending until the last possible point then find ourselves forced to make these absolutely massive investments all at once to make up (and increases the likelihood of negative repercussions).

The obvious recent example is infrastructure, which was sorely needed. Something like 33% of the nations bridges were in need of repair - and 7.5% were considered “structurally deficient”. This was true and a well known issue for years before we agreed to invest money in it - bridges were literally collapsing due to inaction.

I’m aware that massive spending has real world impact, and I’m far more wary of it now than I have been in the past. But we need to start doing a better job of addressing these issues before the price tags get unmanageable. Especially when they are problems where the costs will balloon if not addressed.

I agree with this. I just think there is never a point where I will value spending on removing guns vs other problems. This isn't like fixing infrastructure where you have to do it eventually or you lose something. You don't have to do this at all. Gun deaths aren't rising at some extreme rate or anything and aren't out of control relative to historical impact or relative to cause of death of other causes. The places where safety is an issue need economic help and revitalization not removal of guns.

[LateNight]

On the spending issue -

America has a crappy relationship with spending. Our budgets are largely terrible, so we constantly put off spending until the last possible point then find ourselves forced to make these absolutely massive investments all at once to make up (and increases the likelihood of negative repercussions).

The obvious recent example is infrastructure, which was sorely needed. Something like 33% of the nations bridges were in need of repair - and 7.5% were considered “structurally deficient”. This was true and a well known issue for years before we agreed to invest money in it - bridges were literally collapsing due to inaction.

I’m aware that massive spending has real world impact, and I’m far more wary of it now than I have been in the past. But we need to start doing a better job of addressing these issues before the price tags get unmanageable. Especially when they are problems where the costs will balloon if not addressed.

I agree with this. I just think there is never a point where I will value spending on removing guns vs other problems. This isn't like fixing infrastructure where you have to do it eventually or you lose something. You don't have to do this at all. Gun deaths aren't rising at some extreme rate or anything and aren't out of control relative to historical impact or relative to cause of death of other causes. The places where safety is an issue need economic help and revitalization not removal of guns.

I can understand if gun buybacks are not top of your priority list.

But I always find it interesting when people say: "most shootings are as a result of [systemic inequality / lack of access / mental health]" and then offer no real solution to those issues either. And I'm not saying you're one of those people, Doug - you seem very reasonable.

But these issues often fall under that "kick the can down the road" approach to budgets. 

We've gutted mental health facilities across the country (under democrats and republicans). Take Illinois for example - there were massive statewide cuts for mental health services a couple years ago, then Rahm closed six of the city's 12 mental health clinics.
You have this with homeless shelters as well. In 2011, Illinois voted to cut funding in half. They reversed a lot of those cuts; but within five years, they cut everything in half again. Homeless Youth Program: Cut from $5.6 million to $2.5 million. Supportive Housing Services: Cut from $30.8 million to $16.7 million.

Drug treatment: in 2007 and 2012, Illinois cuts spending by 30%. 

And it's not just Illinois, it's a trend nationwide. Then suddenly, the country is faces massive issues with homelessness, mental health and addiction. 

And the savings are minimal, because you're essentially just differing costs or rerouting them to other areas. 

The government guts support for the mentally ill, homeless, those dealing with addiction - and within a few years, there are huge issues on the street - so now you're increasing funding for police. Instead of spending money on housing and early intervention programs, we end up having to fund new public bathrooms and cooling areas so the homeless don't die on the streets during heat waves. 

And there is a similar pattern with guns. They gut the small, reasonable regulations - we end up having to discuss these massive regulations down the line.

Or we say "we don't want to infringe on gun rights a small amount - so instead let's talk about adding more regulations to building requirements for schools, or regulate video game / social media content, or arm teachers / construct panic rooms in every school."
And some of these things might help and might be good ideas - but it's just as complicated to implement and arguably as big of a values compromise as the initial proposals. 

The problem is people don't see the hidden costs associated with inaction. 

[dougthonus]

But I always find it interesting when people say: "most shootings are as a result of [systemic inequality / lack of access / mental health]" and then offer no real solution to those issues either. And I'm not saying you're one of those people, Doug - you seem very reasonable.

But these issues often fall under that "kick the can down the road" approach to budgets. 

If there was any confusion of my point, I would pump money into both mental health and community enrichment before trying to remove guns. My #1 issue is income inequality in our country, if I could solve one problem, it would be that one, because I think most other problems are considerably lessoned if you solve it.

However, if I was making a list, removal of guns would be on it, but absolutely near the bottom and mental health / community enrichment would be much higher (with community enrichment being part of income inequality and thus closer to the top of my list).

I agree with your statement that many people who are in favor of keeping guns around are also tend to think mental health is BS and also tend to be against social safety nets, and so when they make those arguments, they aren't solving the problem. I'm not in that group myself.

1: I see guns as a problem, just a small problem. I'd agree to any type of movement that restricts them / limits them / bans them as long as the cost was low, I just don't think it's likely you could do it at low cost.

2: I do value the other large issues that would help reduce gun violence.

Not that it matters a wit what my personal beliefs are on the topic (or any topic) really.

[Stratmaster]

By the same token then, being afraid to go to a 4th of July parade because you are afraid of being shot is also a loss of freedom. So it's a trade off. One freedom for another.

The fear of not going to a 4th of July parade is irrational. You have a better chance of dying in a car crash on the way to the parade than getting shot, and probably by an order of magnitude. Terrorist events create irrational fears. That's the point of it. That said, I'm always against legislating against irrational behaviors. I look at how much money we spent after 911 and most of it was just flushing it down the toilet for no benefit and a ton of it just made flying incredibly inconvenient and awful.

IDK. I understand your point. And I agree. But what is a rational fear?

Traffic deaths in 2021 in USA... about 43,000. Gun deaths about 45,000.

So you can break it down and compare mass shootings to all traffic deaths. But that seems like apples and oranges to me. There are all kinds of traffic deaths. There are all kinds of gun deaths. In general, about the same number of people get killed in car crashes as die by gunfire in this country. Slightly more by gunfire.

When you consider how much Americans drive, that stat alone should cause some rational belief in a need to control what is happening with guns.