Political Roundtable Part XXX

[Zonkerbl]

It seems to me that gun crime (the non-passionate kind, including suicide) could be drastically reduced with some simple common sense measures. I'd look at three categories of people that account for the overwhelming majority of gun crime. It shouldn't be difficult to come up with a plan to address each of these dangerous categories of people. I don't see why it couldn't be a bipartisan effort as well.

Persons who are mentally healthy yet have a criminal intent for profit or prestige
Persons who are mentally ill that have criminal intent
Persons who are mentally ill and don't understand or can't control their actions

In an ideal world with perfect information, sure. Maybe. But given that we don't live in a perfect world, it's not workable. The problem is from which direction we're approaching limiting arms from. We either:

1) Assume everyone is mentally healthy and responsible, and until proven otherwise, take gun access away from them.
2) Assume everyone is capable of murder with a gun, and allow people to apply for guns if they can prove that they are not mentally ill or otherwise dangerous.

Using a car analogy, we don't assume everyone is a safe driver, and after the accident happens, take access to cars away. We assume that everyone is not able to drive, and after being licensed (however rubberstamped) allow them to access cars.

It's this fundamental belief that everyone has a right to access guns until proven otherwise that's the source of the danger because it allows for, and even requires tragedies to happen before ex post facto actions are taken.

Just for the sake of argument, assume we will never be able to confiscate the many millions of guns currently present in the country. Further assume that you've been hired to come up with a plan to drastically reduce gun crime. How would approach the problem?

Laughably easy.

Impose a death tax on guns and ammunition, to increase the marginal cost to consumers of buying guns. Use the proceeds of the death tax to buy guns and turn them into electric guitars (or whatever).

Buyback programs don't work because there's a marginal propensity to own a firearm and if you don't do anything to influence that, all buyback programs normally do is replace old guns with newer guns. But if you ban guns (not practical) or put a death tax on them (more practical), the marginal propensity to own guns goes down and the number of guns in circulation can be reduced. All the people who still want to hold on to their guns are allowed to do so - the main effect is to discourage people from buying new guns, which, by the way, will prevent/discourage some of these impulsive "buy a gun and then go shoot up a school" crap.

None of the other typical Dem gun control things are at all useful. Banning ar-15s is completely useless. Background checks are a joke. Name me a current gun control legislation and I'll show you how dumb and useless it is. But a death tax would actually do something. And you can dial it up or down to try and balance benefits and costs of gun ownership.

I'll be transparent and say what I would do is impose a relatively low tax and then crank it up higher and higher, like we did with cigarettes. But not to seize all your guns, I couldn't care less, I don't want your guns, just to prevent suicide, mainly. If it reduces violent crimes committed with guns also that would be great, and if schools shootings dried up as well that would be a bonus.

[popper]

It seems to me that gun crime (the non-passionate kind, including suicide) could be drastically reduced with some simple common sense measures. I'd look at three categories of people that account for the overwhelming majority of gun crime. It shouldn't be difficult to come up with a plan to address each of these dangerous categories of people. I don't see why it couldn't be a bipartisan effort as well.

Persons who are mentally healthy yet have a criminal intent for profit or prestige
Persons who are mentally ill that have criminal intent
Persons who are mentally ill and don't understand or can't control their actions

It may surprise you to hear me say that this is a right wing talking point that is completely disjoint from reality. Mental illness has nothing to do with any of this - the degree of mental illness is the same here as it is in Australia, which has orders of magnitude less gun violence than us.

Gun crime is committed with guns. The less guns, the less gun crime. Passionate, dispassionate.

For example, suicide. First of all, suicides are preventable. It is insane right wing propaganda to say that someone who wants to commit suicide eventually will, so why bother trying to stop it. Complete hogwash. The cruelest thing you can say to someone whose loved one has just committed suicide - "don't blame yourself, it was inevitable." It's not true. "We couldn't save him/her, but suicide isn't inevitable - you can help other parents avoid the pain you are going through." Your average success rate for attempted suicide is 10%. Suicide is not committed by people who are sad - it is committed by people with treatable clinical depression. If you survive the suicide attempt, you can be given anti-depression medications that are clinically proven to reduce suicidal ideation ("suicidal thoughts").

Problem is, suicide attempts WITH GUNS are 90% successful.

The less guns lying around, the more likely your teenage daughter will survive a suicide attempt, the more likely you can get her the treatment she needs so it won't happen again and she will survive to be an adult.

The problem. Is guns.

I disagree zonk that "mental illness has nothing to do with any of this." I don't believe mentally healthy people fantasize about, and then enter a school to slaughter young children.

Your discussion on suicide is spot on though.

[popper]

In an ideal world with perfect information, sure. Maybe. But given that we don't live in a perfect world, it's not workable. The problem is from which direction we're approaching limiting arms from. We either:

1) Assume everyone is mentally healthy and responsible, and until proven otherwise, take gun access away from them.
2) Assume everyone is capable of murder with a gun, and allow people to apply for guns if they can prove that they are not mentally ill or otherwise dangerous.

Using a car analogy, we don't assume everyone is a safe driver, and after the accident happens, take access to cars away. We assume that everyone is not able to drive, and after being licensed (however rubberstamped) allow them to access cars.

It's this fundamental belief that everyone has a right to access guns until proven otherwise that's the source of the danger because it allows for, and even requires tragedies to happen before ex post facto actions are taken.

Just for the sake of argument, assume we will never be able to confiscate the many millions of guns currently present in the country. Further assume that you've been hired to come up with a plan to drastically reduce gun crime. How would approach the problem?

Laughably easy.

Impose a death tax on guns and ammunition, to increase the marginal cost to consumers of buying guns. Use the proceeds of the death tax to buy guns and turn them into electric guitars (or whatever).

Buyback programs don't work because there's a marginal propensity to own a firearm and if you don't do anything to influence that, all buyback programs normally do is replace old guns with newer guns. But if you ban guns (not practical) or put a death tax on them (more practical), the marginal propensity to own guns goes down and the number of guns in circulation can be reduced. All the people who still want to hold on to their guns are allowed to do so - the main effect is to discourage people from buying new guns, which, by the way, will prevent/discourage some of these impulsive "buy a gun and then go shoot up a school" crap.

None of the other typical Dem gun control things are at all useful. Banning ar-15s is completely useless. Background checks are a joke. Name me a current gun control legislation and I'll show you how dumb and useless it is. But a death tax would actually do something. And you can dial it up or down to try and balance benefits and costs of gun ownership.

I'll be transparent and say what I would do is impose a relatively low tax and then crank it up higher and higher, like we did with cigarettes. But not to seize all your guns, I couldn't care less, I don't want your guns, just to prevent suicide, mainly. If it reduces violent crimes committed with guns also that would be great, and if schools shootings dried up as well that would be a bonus.

I have no problem at all with imposing an additional tax on gun purchases as long as its collected once on the original sale (not reoccurring every year).

[Zonkerbl]

It seems to me that gun crime (the non-passionate kind, including suicide) could be drastically reduced with some simple common sense measures. I'd look at three categories of people that account for the overwhelming majority of gun crime. It shouldn't be difficult to come up with a plan to address each of these dangerous categories of people. I don't see why it couldn't be a bipartisan effort as well.

Persons who are mentally healthy yet have a criminal intent for profit or prestige
Persons who are mentally ill that have criminal intent
Persons who are mentally ill and don't understand or can't control their actions

It may surprise you to hear me say that this is a right wing talking point that is completely disjoint from reality. Mental illness has nothing to do with any of this - the degree of mental illness is the same here as it is in Australia, which has orders of magnitude less gun violence than us.

Gun crime is committed with guns. The less guns, the less gun crime. Passionate, dispassionate.

For example, suicide. First of all, suicides are preventable. It is insane right wing propaganda to say that someone who wants to commit suicide eventually will, so why bother trying to stop it. Complete hogwash. The cruelest thing you can say to someone whose loved one has just committed suicide - "don't blame yourself, it was inevitable." It's not true. "We couldn't save him/her, but suicide isn't inevitable - you can help other parents avoid the pain you are going through." Your average success rate for attempted suicide is 10%. Suicide is not committed by people who are sad - it is committed by people with treatable clinical depression. If you survive the suicide attempt, you can be given anti-depression medications that are clinically proven to reduce suicidal ideation ("suicidal thoughts").

Problem is, suicide attempts WITH GUNS are 90% successful.

The less guns lying around, the more likely your teenage daughter will survive a suicide attempt, the more likely you can get her the treatment she needs so it won't happen again and she will survive to be an adult.

The problem. Is guns.

I disagree zonk that "mental illness has nothing to do with any of this." I don't believe mentally healthy people fantasize about, and then enter a school to slaughter young children.

Your discussion on suicide is spot on though.

It's such a small sample, so it's hard to say anything about it. But one thing they all seem to have in common is aggressively toxic masculinity/misogyny. Many, many mass shooters start off their spree by shooting their mom or wife (or in this case, grandma, iirc). Extreme anger management problems, particularly aimed at women, is not a mental illness caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, I don't think. It's stress induced and very, very treatable. We could do a better job helping boys deal with the damage a toxically masculine upbringing does to them. Schizophrenics are not dangerous, people with clinical depression are not dangerous, and it is in fact very damaging to associate such people with mass shooters, who are absolutely not mentally ill. They are very "normal" (that is, neurotypical) boys exposed to, unfortunately, very difficult circumstances of growing up in a society that encourages toxic masculinity. Most of us survive it, although with lasting emotional damage. Some of us, especially those of us in extremely stressful circumstances, do not.

Nevertheless, my previous point stands - we are no more toxically masculine than Australia. Therapy to address the aftermath of a toxically masculine upbringing would *help* and I wouldn't refuse it if, say, the GOP were to offer it. But the main problem is too many guns.

[popper]

It may surprise you to hear me say that this is a right wing talking point that is completely disjoint from reality. Mental illness has nothing to do with any of this - the degree of mental illness is the same here as it is in Australia, which has orders of magnitude less gun violence than us.

Gun crime is committed with guns. The less guns, the less gun crime. Passionate, dispassionate.

For example, suicide. First of all, suicides are preventable. It is insane right wing propaganda to say that someone who wants to commit suicide eventually will, so why bother trying to stop it. Complete hogwash. The cruelest thing you can say to someone whose loved one has just committed suicide - "don't blame yourself, it was inevitable." It's not true. "We couldn't save him/her, but suicide isn't inevitable - you can help other parents avoid the pain you are going through." Your average success rate for attempted suicide is 10%. Suicide is not committed by people who are sad - it is committed by people with treatable clinical depression. If you survive the suicide attempt, you can be given anti-depression medications that are clinically proven to reduce suicidal ideation ("suicidal thoughts").

Problem is, suicide attempts WITH GUNS are 90% successful.

The less guns lying around, the more likely your teenage daughter will survive a suicide attempt, the more likely you can get her the treatment she needs so it won't happen again and she will survive to be an adult.

The problem. Is guns.

I disagree zonk that "mental illness has nothing to do with any of this." I don't believe mentally healthy people fantasize about, and then enter a school to slaughter young children.

Your discussion on suicide is spot on though.

It's such a small sample, so it's hard to say anything about it. But one thing they all seem to have in common is aggressively toxic masculinity/misogyny. Many, many mass shooters start off their spree by shooting their mom or wife (or in this case, grandma, iirc). Extreme anger management problems, particularly aimed at women, is not a mental illness caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, I don't think. It's stress induced and very, very treatable. We could do a better job helping boys deal with the damage a toxically masculine upbringing does to them. Schizophrenics are not dangerous, people with clinical depression are not dangerous, and it is in fact very damaging to associate such people with mass shooters, who are absolutely not mentally ill. They are very normal boys exposed to, unfortunately, very difficult circumstances of growing up in a society that encourages toxic masculinity. Most of us survive it, although with lasting emotional damage. Some of us, especially those of us in extremely stressful circumstances, do not.

Nevertheless, my previous point stands - we are no more toxically masculine than Australia. Therapy to address the aftermath of a toxically masculine upbringing would *help* and I wouldn't refuse it if, say, the GOP were to offer it. But the main problem is too many guns.

Interesting. Can you refer me to a study or other source that talks about toxic masculinity as a contributing cause/motivation for mass shootings? I'm not disagreeing but have never heard about that.

[Zonkerbl]

Oh yeah it's a very common finding actually, for example:

https://efsgv.org/press/study-two-thirds-of-mass-shootings-linked-to-domestic-violence/

It's why one of the most dangerous situations for cops are domestic violence situations. Wife beaters are not just horrible, contemptible people - they're most likely to become dangerous murderers.

[popper]

I think I've mentioned this before but during grades 4-6 my buddies and I would carry our shotguns to school. Before and after school we'd hunt squirrel, rabbit and when they were in season, dove. Obviously we had to leave our firearms out in the woods during class. If I and my siblings didn't have game to supplement our diet we would have been hungry all the time.

[Zonkerbl]

I think I've mentioned this before but during grades 4-6 my buddies and I would carry our shotguns to school. Before and after school we'd hunt squirrel, rabbit and when they were in season, dove. Obviously we had to leave our firearms out in the woods during class. If I and my siblings didn't have game to supplement our diet we would have been hungry all the time.

Yeah growing up in a rural town all my friends hunted. And if someone is trespassing on your property what are you supposed to do, call the cops and wait half an hour for them to show up?

There's something like 400 million guns in this country. If you want a cheap, used hunting rifle you'll always be able to get one. You don't need 400 million guns for that. Handguns might get harder to find.

[Zonkerbl]

I mean, I respect rural folks' genuine need for guns. I just don't think it's worth murdering kids over it. Surely there's a middle ground between "we have a genuine need for hunting and protection" and 400 million guns with kids regularly being slaughtered in our schools.

[Zonkerbl]

Just for the sake of argument, assume we will never be able to confiscate the many millions of guns currently present in the country. Further assume that you've been hired to come up with a plan to drastically reduce gun crime. How would approach the problem?

Laughably easy.

Impose a death tax on guns and ammunition, to increase the marginal cost to consumers of buying guns. Use the proceeds of the death tax to buy guns and turn them into electric guitars (or whatever).

Buyback programs don't work because there's a marginal propensity to own a firearm and if you don't do anything to influence that, all buyback programs normally do is replace old guns with newer guns. But if you ban guns (not practical) or put a death tax on them (more practical), the marginal propensity to own guns goes down and the number of guns in circulation can be reduced. All the people who still want to hold on to their guns are allowed to do so - the main effect is to discourage people from buying new guns, which, by the way, will prevent/discourage some of these impulsive "buy a gun and then go shoot up a school" crap.

None of the other typical Dem gun control things are at all useful. Banning ar-15s is completely useless. Background checks are a joke. Name me a current gun control legislation and I'll show you how dumb and useless it is. But a death tax would actually do something. And you can dial it up or down to try and balance benefits and costs of gun ownership.

I'll be transparent and say what I would do is impose a relatively low tax and then crank it up higher and higher, like we did with cigarettes. But not to seize all your guns, I couldn't care less, I don't want your guns, just to prevent suicide, mainly. If it reduces violent crimes committed with guns also that would be great, and if schools shootings dried up as well that would be a bonus.

I have no problem at all with imposing an additional tax on gun purchases as long as its collected once on the original sale (not reoccurring every year).

That's the idea. In Australia it's every two or three years, depending on which province you're in. I think here what we would do is tax a gun at sale and then tax the ammo.

[popper]

Oh yeah it's a very common finding actually, for example:

https://efsgv.org/press/study-two-thirds-of-mass-shootings-linked-to-domestic-violence/

It's why one of the most dangerous situations for cops are domestic violence situations. Wife beaters are not just horrible, contemptible people - they're most likely to become dangerous murderers.

The study ties a large percentage of mass shootings to perpetrators of Domestic Violence which is a valuable piece of information to know in order to avoid future carnage. I guess one can infer that toxic masculinity is part of the motivation but it doesn't really talk about that. Nevertheless I learned something new today so thanks. I'm confused a bit about whether or not there's a federal law that prohibits convicted DV perpetrators from possessing a gun. If not, there should be.

[dckingsfan]

Mass shootings of a "small number" of kids is a small price to pay for gun rights...

[dckingsfan]

Just for the sake of argument, assume we will never be able to confiscate the many millions of guns currently present in the country.

Logical fallacy that is partly driving the argument.

Too many guns are out there, therefore don't stop the sale of guns or try to greatly reduce their number.

Either way, I would create a mandatory insurance policy for anyone that wants to own a gun. Any victim of gun violence would then be remedied through the courts. Don't have insurance, then the gun can rightly be confiscated.

Any new purchases of guns would require background checks and ongoing insurance.

End immunity for firearm companies. That’s welfare to a particular industry.

Set a date for all guns to be “Smart guns” that tie to the mandatory insurance and can be turned off if there is something like domestic violence or mental illness.

[Zonkerbl]

Oh yeah it's a very common finding actually, for example:

https://efsgv.org/press/study-two-thirds-of-mass-shootings-linked-to-domestic-violence/

It's why one of the most dangerous situations for cops are domestic violence situations. Wife beaters are not just horrible, contemptible people - they're most likely to become dangerous murderers.

The study ties a large percentage of mass shootings to perpetrators of Domestic Violence which is a valuable piece of information to know in order to avoid future carnage. I guess one can infer that toxic masculinity is part of the motivation but it doesn't really talk about that. Nevertheless I learned something new today so thanks. I'm confused a bit about whether or not there's a federal law that prohibits convicted DV perpetrators from possessing a gun. If not, there should be.

So when you hear about red flag laws that's what they're talking about.

[dobrojim]

It seems to me that gun crime (the non-passionate kind, including suicide) could be drastically reduced with some simple common sense measures. I'd look at three categories of people that account for the overwhelming majority of gun crime. It shouldn't be difficult to come up with a plan to address each of these dangerous categories of people. I don't see why it couldn't be a bipartisan effort as well.

Persons who are mentally healthy yet have a criminal intent for profit or prestige
Persons who are mentally ill that have criminal intent
Persons who are mentally ill and don't understand or can't control their actions

Popper

(this is not about gun crime per se although the first section of the book examines
the prevalence of gun suicide to the proliferation of gun ownership)

I urge you to read Dying of Whiteness.

https://www.amazon.com/Dying-Whiteness-Politics-Resentment-Heartland/dp/1541644972/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3CI3Y4RJN565L&keywords=dying+of+whiteness+by+jonathan+metzl&qid=1653525780&sprefix=dying+of+whiteness+by+jonathan+metzl%2Caps%2C42&sr=8-1

edit to add - this book provides a much more plausible explanation for demographic trends
that the proponents of GRT can offer.

in a nutshell, stop voting against your interest!

[dobrojim]

By the way, JD Vance got quite a few things wrong in Eligy.

For a much more nuanced and well grounded examination check out

What you are getting wrong about Appalachia by Elizabeth Catte

https://www.amazon.com/What-Getting-Wrong-About-Appalachia/dp/0998904147/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1JYKD778SX66Q&keywords=what+you+are+getting+wrong+about+appalachia&qid=1653527227&sprefix=what+you+are+%2Caps%2C67&sr=8-1

or better yet

https://www.npr.org/2018/01/31/582240482/historian-makes-case-for-what-you-are-getting-wrong-about-appalachia-in-new-book

Hopefully the author (Catte) will get more publicity about her book as scrutiny on Vance increases.

[dobrojim]

forget if someone else already posted about this but I just wanna say gay people
are often so much smarter than those who think they can control culture with
censures and banning.

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/florida/os-ne-florida-student-gives-speech-using-curly-hair-to-dont-say-gay-bill-20220524-4s6pwcsgvvcm3jtg6i7bve4wey-story.html

[dobrojim]

oh yeah, I almost forgot...this is what I wanted to post about



https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/05/24/home-depot-lowes-marvin-ellison-great-placement-theory-boycott/

Don't shop at Home Depot if you support the racial justice cause

..., I learned that Home Depot had donated thousands of dollars to the political campaign of Rep. Elise Stefanik (N.Y.). She’s one of the Republicans whose campaign advertisements have echoed the white-supremacist “great replacement” conspiracy theory.

my understanding is Stefanik is not the only pol they've contributed to that I would not support.
They had a significant role in Stop the Steal.

[doclinkin]

In an ideal world with perfect information, sure. Maybe. But given that we don't live in a perfect world, it's not workable. The problem is from which direction we're approaching limiting arms from. We either:

1) Assume everyone is mentally healthy and responsible, and until proven otherwise, take gun access away from them.
2) Assume everyone is capable of murder with a gun, and allow people to apply for guns if they can prove that they are not mentally ill or otherwise dangerous.

Using a car analogy, we don't assume everyone is a safe driver, and after the accident happens, take access to cars away. We assume that everyone is not able to drive, and after being licensed (however rubberstamped) allow them to access cars.

It's this fundamental belief that everyone has a right to access guns until proven otherwise that's the source of the danger because it allows for, and even requires tragedies to happen before ex post facto actions are taken.

Just for the sake of argument, assume we will never be able to confiscate the many millions of guns currently present in the country. Further assume that you've been hired to come up with a plan to drastically reduce gun crime. How would approach the problem?

Laughably easy.

Impose a death tax on guns and ammunition, to increase the marginal cost to consumers of buying guns. Use the proceeds of the death tax to buy guns and turn them into electric guitars (or whatever).

Buyback programs don't work because there's a marginal propensity to own a firearm and if you don't do anything to influence that, all buyback programs normally do is replace old guns with newer guns. But if you ban guns (not practical) or put a death tax on them (more practical), the marginal propensity to own guns goes down and the number of guns in circulation can be reduced. All the people who still want to hold on to their guns are allowed to do so - the main effect is to discourage people from buying new guns, which, by the way, will prevent/discourage some of these impulsive "buy a gun and then go shoot up a school" crap.

None of the other typical Dem gun control things are at all useful. Banning ar-15s is completely useless. Background checks are a joke. Name me a current gun control legislation and I'll show you how dumb and useless it is. But a death tax would actually do something. And you can dial it up or down to try and balance benefits and costs of gun ownership.

I'll be transparent and say what I would do is impose a relatively low tax and then crank it up higher and higher, like we did with cigarettes. But not to seize all your guns, I couldn't care less, I don't want your guns, just to prevent suicide, mainly. If it reduces violent crimes committed with guns also that would be great, and if schools shootings dried up as well that would be a bonus.

Addendum to Zonker's plan: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". Well regulated can be interpreted in the modern way (ie laws and regulations) or in the archaic way (well trained) and still the result would be this:

Require a license to buy ammunition.

With 3D printed guns becoming common, and digital blueprints instantly transferrable, yeah you will not remove all the guns from people's lockers etc, and even if you did, more would show up.

However, we require people to test to get a driver's license, since cars are dangerous and improper use of them is deadly to other people. It falls under the definition of 'well regulated' to ensure that gun owners are trained in gun safety, to prove they have gun insurance (and are liable for accidental death or injury or misuse of that gun) can show proof of a gun locker so children cannot get a hold of it, etc. AND states require people to test every few years when they are elderly, or if they have vision problems etc. It is perfectly reasonable to devise tests that determine if a person is fit to receive a gun license and even require them to pass a shooting test (including failure if they shoot a target that is labelled as an innocent, much as police and military test people to do).

Without that Arms License you cannot buy bullets. Much as you have to show an ID to refuel on alcohol or cigarettes. And it would be a felony to give or sell bullets without passing the regulations for that as well. Like having a liquor license, because liquor can be, you know, deadly.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?t=kZCSmoCWLeIF7CvLU0yofg&s=19